(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.01.31 2018노1136 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.01.31 2018노1136

업무방해

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding or misapprehension of the legal principle), the fact that the defendant removed a notice of the council of occupants' representatives as shown in the facts charged, and this constitutes the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of such fact

2. Determination

A. “Business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the relevant legal principles under the Criminal Act is an occupation or continuous business, which is worth protecting from infringement by another person’s unlawful act. Since such business is not necessarily required to be lawful or valid, it is determined depending on whether the business is a legally worthy of protection, and there is a substantive or procedural defect in the process of commencing or performing the business.

Even if the degree of the crime of interference with business does not reach a case where it is inevitable to be evaluated equally from the perspective of social protection to the extent that it is considerably unacceptable in social life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do2214, Nov. 12, 1996; 2013Do430, Nov. 28, 2013). The crime of interference with business is subject to protection of the crime of interference with business insofar as it does not reach an extent that it does not have to be evaluated equally from the perspective of legal protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do2214, Nov. 12, 1996; 2013Do4430, Nov. 28, 2013). The intention of the crime of interference with business is not necessarily required to have the intention of interference with business or planned interference with business, but is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility of interference with another person’s business due to his/her own act, and its recognition or prediction is not definite (see, etc.).

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by evidence duly admitted and investigated, the defendant shall be taken into account:

참조조문

-형법

참조판례

-대법원 1996. 11. 12. 선고 96도2214 판결

-대법원 2012. 5. 24. 선고 2011도7943 판결

-대법원 2013. 11. 28. 선고 2013도4430 판결

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.10.21 2016노1999

-서울서부지방법원 2013.12.05 2013노1029

-전주지방법원 2019.05.01 2019노133

-의정부지방법원 2015.05.19 2014노2992

-수원지방법원 2019.05.16 2018노4945