logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.12.22 2019노1956
업무방해
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with regard to the use of the expression "regularly registered company" on the Internet site by Defendant A (as to the obstruction of business by fraudulent means), it merely means that the Defendant reported and registered as "parking lot business", and it does not mean that the Defendant operated an official parking agency in the airport. Since the Defendant did not engage in a passenger act on the official parking lot route, the Defendant did not use a simple tag clearly distinguishable from the victimized company and used only the phrase "parking" on the wooden board, and there is no causation between the result of interference with business. 2) The Defendants (as to interference with business by force), did not intend to commit a crime of interference with business, and there is no intention to commit a crime of interference with business, and there is no fact that the employees of the Defendants used the airport facility to deliver vehicles to the customers temporarily in advance, but did not leave the exclusive zone for the mobility impaired, nor did it be viewed that the Defendants did not interfere with a new act of interference with the recruitment of the passengers through a new act of interference with the recruitment of airport facilities.

3) Defendant B, C, D, and E’s employees of the victimized Company was not entitled to demand the withdrawal of the Defendants, and the statement of P is not reliable. (b) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor of the lower court for August, 200, and two years and two years of suspended execution for each of the remaining Defendants: 6 months of suspended execution and two years of suspended execution for each of the lower courts.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the claim 1 for misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant himself/herself operates on the Internet homepage.

arrow