logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.06.15 2019노1576
업무방해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Even if a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles results in interference with the entrusted business of the victims, this can be foreseeable and acceptable by social norms as a result of an assembly conducted in accordance with legitimate procedures, and the holding of the instant assembly itself cannot be viewed as the exercise of force.

Nevertheless, among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In the determination of mistake of facts, the term “defensive force” in the crime of interference with business means any force capable of suppressing or mixing a person’s free will, regardless of whether it is tangible or intangible, and in reality, the victim’s free will is not required, but means the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., and it does not necessarily mean the force directly going to the person engaged in the business, but may also include any act that makes it considerably difficult to make a certain physical condition sufficient to suppress a person’s free will to freely act, or to make it difficult for the person to freely act.

The crime of interference with business is not necessary to establish the result of interference with business, and there is a risk of causing the result of interference with business.

(2) The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant leased a commercial building from the victims of this case, and the Defendant participated in the instant assembly at the request of Co-Defendant B during the dispute, and ② the report of the instant outdoor assembly.

arrow