logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2013.12.06 2013노511
업무방해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) As to the obstruction of business by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the victim D’s site banking work does not constitute the business in the crime of interference with business, and the Defendant’s temporary stopping of the vehicle cannot be deemed as the threat of interference with business, and thereby there was no risk of interference with the victim’s land filling work. 2) As to the damage of property, the Defendant consented to the victim’s awareness of the land owned by the Defendant, but the Defendant refused the victim’s demand that the victim be neglected to be a person beyond the scope of the consent, and the Defendant’s demand that it be well known that the consideration was made. Therefore, the Defendant’s act of paying attention is not unlawful because it is based on

B. The lower court’s sentence on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the term “business” in the crime of interference with business refers to the entire business or business that continues to be engaged in on the basis of an occupation or social status. It is not whether the business is main or incidental, and even if a single business is a single business, it is a case where the business itself continues to be performed to a certain extent or it is conducted in close relation to the performance of its original duties that it continued to be conducted on the basis of an occupation or social status.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8701 Decided April 15, 2005, etc.). According to the evidence adopted by the court below and the court of first instance, the victim and his wife had E (e.g., an employee of the company he manages to construct a house for the purpose of residing at the weekend of the week. The victim had E (e.g., an employee of the company in charge of constructing a house for the purpose of residing at the weekend of the week. The above Corporation was proceeding from February 2012 to October 2 of the same year.

arrow