logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.11.09 2014도3270
재물손괴
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. The gist of the instant ancillary charge is as follows: “The Defendant, on October 21, 2012, parked a knife onto the front driver of the vehicle on the ground that D without permission in the first floor parking lot underground of the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon Seodong-gu Daejeon (Seoul), thereby interfering with D driving duties by force from October 22, 2012 to October 36, 2012.

“.....”

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant conjunctive charges added by the lower court.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. “Duties” of interference with business under Article 314 of the Criminal Act refers to business affairs or business affairs continuously engaged in under an occupation or other social status (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do3829, Jun. 14, 2013). Affairs performed as part of a mere personal daily life that cannot be deemed based on an occupation or social status cannot be deemed as constituting business subject to the protection of interference with business affairs.

B. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveal the following.

(1) D as a main agent, was parked in the above building parking lot in the vicinity of the building after operating the said vehicle to a high-speed bus terminal located in Daejeon Seosung-gu in order to board the rapid bus for personal use.

(2) The foregoing vehicle operated by D is a private vehicle registered under the name of J, the machine of which was D, and the foregoing vehicle was related to the business or operated by D for its own business even after examining the record.

No data can be found.

(3) When the Defendant discovered the foregoing vehicle parked in a state where the identity of the driver or passenger and whether the store in the above building is not available, the Defendant left the vehicle without permission and bound the vehicle to be parked with the front driver and the handper.

arrow