beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, calls from the victim’s North Daegu Daegu Joint Market (hereinafter “victim”) for the purpose of resisting the sale price of the goods at which the consignment is substantially low, etc., and a relatively long-term act is a relatively long-term act, and there is a day when the phone is less or less than the phone. Thus, the Defendant does not constitute “compact” as a whole, since it does not reach the degree of interference with the victim’
The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the term “comfort force” in the crime of interference with business refers to all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will, either tangible or intangible, and as such, it includes not only violence, intimidation, but also social, economic and political status and pressure based on royalty, etc., and in reality, it does not require a suppression of the victim’s free will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8447, May 27, 2005). However, it means a force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the time and place of the crime, motive and purpose of the crime, number of persons, capacity, mode of force, type of duty, type of duty, status of the victim, etc. Therefore, whether it constitutes force ought to be objectively determined in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the date and place of the crime.
In addition, the power of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily mean only the ability to directly leave a person engaged in the business, but also include acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult for a person to freely act by creating a certain physical condition sufficient to suppress a person’s free will.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009).