logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.09.29 2017노679
업무방해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the instant lease agreement becomes effective from November 24, 2015, which finally re-enters the lease agreement; (b) so, the lease agreement was not effective at the time of the instant case; and (c) the victim did not run the hospital business; and thus, (d) such agreement does not constitute a crime of interference with business.

In addition, since the fireworks of this case is owned by the defendant, the crime of damage is not established.

However, the court below found all of the facts charged of this case guilty, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Work in the crime of interference with business under the relevant legal principles

the term "all affairs that a person continues to perform in accordance with his/her social status shall be included, whether it is a main or incidental, and shall include preparation of the original affairs.

In addition, a contract or administrative act, etc. which forms the basis of business, is not necessarily required to be lawful, and is subject to protection when the contract, etc. is invalid or invalidated, or it is not possible to oppose the present right holder, and the work is based on social activities in fact for a certain period of time.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the obstruction of business operation, it is sufficient that the obstruction of business is an abstract dangerous crime that does not require the result of the interference of business, but is likely to cause the risk of causing the interference of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do944, Jun. 28, 191). (b) Specific determination 1), the victim entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the part of the instant building with the Defendant on September 28, 2015, and until October 2015, when the nurse was operating the hospital in a peaceful manner at the relevant place from around that time to around October 2015, it is inevitable for the nurse to leave the hospital from the beginning of November 2015 to the end of November 2015.

arrow