logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.04.06 2014노1109
업무방해
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants: The general meeting held on April 15, 2013, which was held by an unqualified person, was a director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) at the time of the lower judgment’s criminal facts, and the victims were in charge of the said company’s business without legitimate authority.

Therefore, as stated in the facts of the lower judgment, the Defendants’ act of leaving the door of the office in order to open a temporary directors’ meeting in the instant company office or prevent the victims from performing their duties in violation of the law does not constitute an act of interference with or a threat of force, and it cannot be deemed as an act of interference with business under the Criminal Act

2. The lower court found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case by taking into account the Defendants’ partial legal statements, the entries of the Prosecutor’s Suspect Examination Protocol (including I’s I’s part), the site photographs, and the minutes of the ordinary general meeting of shareholders ( April 15, 2013) as evidence.

The Defendants asserted in the lower court that the Defendants’ act does not constitute a force in the crime of interference with their duties, but also constitutes a legitimate act.

As to this, it is reasonable to view that the act of six persons, including the Defendants, entering a company office and replacing locks without complying with the request for eviction constitutes a force of interference with business as a force sufficient to suppress the victim's free will.

In addition, on April 15, 2013, inasmuch as no objective evidence exists to deem that the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders is unlawful, the Defendants’ act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act on the ground that the aforementioned resolution cannot be acknowledged.

3. “Business” subject to protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act for deliberation by a party is an occupation or a business continuously engaged in.

arrow