[1] The meaning of "one act" among the requirements for the commercial concurrence / In the case of the commercial concurrence relationship, whether res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment on one of the crimes affects other crimes (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that in a case where the Defendant was convicted of the facts charged of interference with business and the facts charged of interference with business in the final and conclusive judgment, which interfered with the victim Eul's business by finding the victim's office from April 16, 2015 to April 14:30, in a case where the Defendant was convicted of the facts charged that "it interfered with the business of the victim's Eul while putting six employees at the Gap company's office," and the Defendant found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of interference with business and the facts charged of interference with business in the final and conclusive judgment as follows: (a) since April 13:30, 2015 to 15 to 15:00, the Defendant found the victim's Byung, the victim's Byung, and the general staff were working in the Gap company's office and interfered with the victim's business by taking advantage of the victim's desire, and thus interfered with business by force,"

[1] Commercial concurrence refers to a case where a single act constitutes several crimes (Article 40 of the Criminal Code). The term "one act" refers to an act in light of social norms, regardless of the legal evaluation, which is evaluated as one act in the state of nature of an object. In addition, in the case of commercial concurrence, the res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment on one of the crimes shall also extend to other crimes.

[2] In a case where the Defendant was indicted on the charge that “the crime of interference with business between April 16, 2015 and 14:30 of the final judgment is identical to the date and place of the crime, and interfere with the business of the victim Eul while obstructing the business of the victim Eul,” among six employees at the office of the company Gap, the case holding that it is unreasonable for the Defendant to view that the crime of interference with business in the final judgment of interference with business is also identical to the date and place of the crime, and that there is no difference between the time of the crime and the time of the crime, and each crime also differs from the criminal facts of the final judgment, and thus, it is unreasonable to view that the crime of interference with business committed by the victim Byung and the victim Byung et al., committed an act of interference with the res judicata of the final judgment, and thus, it is unreasonable for the Defendant to have convicted him of the same opportunity as the victim’s act of interference with the final judgment, and thus, it is unreasonable for the lower court to have determined that it interfere with the res judicata of the final judgment.

[1] Article 40 of the Criminal Code, Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 40 and 314 (1) of the Criminal Code, Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Do2731 delivered on February 24, 1987 (Gong1987, 594) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do10233 Delivered on February 23, 2007

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Ulsan District Court Decision 2016No1342 decided July 6, 2017

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Ulsan District Court. Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s appeal

The term "one act" refers to a case where a single act constitutes several crimes (Article 40 of the Criminal Act). The term "one act" refers to an act that is evaluated as one act in the state of the nature of an object, regardless of the legal evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do2731, Feb. 24, 1987). In the case of a commercial competition relationship, the res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment on one of the crimes extends to other crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do10233, Feb. 23, 2007).

Of the instant facts charged against Defendant 1, the part of the charge of interference with the business was as follows: “The Defendant 1 interfered with the business of Nonindicted 1’s ○○○○○○○ Office located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, with six employees from around 13:10 on April 16, 2015 to around 14:30” (hereinafter “instant interference with the business”). The Defendant 1 interfered with the business of Nonindicted 1’s ○○○○○○○○○○ Office for approximately one hour and twenty employees of Ulsan-gun, with the appearance of “if there is only an internal organ organ,” he does not run the internal organ office, and he did not run the police office, leading the vehicle, her thickness, and the width did not run, and the width interfered with the business of Nonindicted 1’s ○○○○○○○.” (hereinafter “instant interference with business”).

그런데 피고인 1에 대하여 유죄판결이 확정된 울산지방법원 2015. 11. 20. 선고 2015고정1165 판결 (이하 ‘확정판결’이라고 한다)의 범죄사실 중에는 “피고인 1이 2015. 4. 16. 13:30경부터 15:00경 사이에 울산 울주군 (주소 생략)에 있는 ○○○○ 사무실에 찾아와 피해자 공소외 2, 공소외 3과 일반직원들이 근무를 하고 있음에도 피해자들에게 ‘배웠다는 놈들이 좃 같은데 와서, 니네 부모가 불쌍하다, 마음 같아서는 부모 욕이라도 하고 싶다’라고 욕설을 하는 등 큰소리를 지르고 돌아다니는 등 위력으로 피해자들의 회사 업무를 방해하였다.”라는 업무방해죄의 범죄사실이 포함되어 있다.

The crime of interference with business in the instant case and the crime of interference with business in the final and conclusive judgment is identical to the date and place of the crime. There is no difference between the time and place of the crime. However, it is unreasonable to view the content of the crime as having been in the same time. Each of the crime of interference with business in the instant case is also unreasonable. The crime of interference with business in the final and conclusive judgment is essentially different from the fact that “an employee puts a failure against his/her employees,” and the crime of interference with business in the final and conclusive judgment is “I return to a large amount of objection, such as obsing the employee while he/she works.” Ultimately, it is sufficient to evaluate the crime of interference with business in the instant case and the crime of interference with business in the final and conclusive judgment as one act of interference with business by force against multiple victims at the same time and at the same place, and it is sufficient to evaluate it as one act of interference with business in the social sense.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of interference with the instant business with the foregoing. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the relationship of commercial concurrence and the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1 is reversed, and since the remaining guilty part and the other concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes.

2. As to Defendant 2’s appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and duly admitted evidence, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant 2 was guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of interference with business

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a fine is imposed on Defendant 2, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not legitimate grounds for appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on Defendant 1’s remaining grounds of appeal, the part on Defendant 1 among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)