beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,00 and by a fine of KRW 500,00.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding 1) The Defendants’ interference with business did not appear to have made an objection by raising the speech of the Defendants to the Fsports Center operated by the victim E, but the place of resistance was located far away from the office and corridor and did not result in substantial interference with business, the lower court convicted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The Defendants were not required to leave from the victim E on April 20, 2012, and there was no fact-finding on April 21, 2012, and even though there was no fact-finding on April 21, 2012, the lower court convicted them of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. In light of the motive of the crime of unfair sentencing and the Defendants’ opposition, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of three million won, Defendant B: a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if it does not require the result of interference with business to actually occur, and if there is a risk of causing interference with business to cause the result of interference with business, and the crime of interference with business is established even where the propriety or fairness of business is hindered, not itself,
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506 Decided March 25, 2010). (b) The following circumstances recognized by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., (i) the Defendants provided the victim E with a large voice on the ground that the victim E’s wife G was not repaid the money in the office and corridor within the Fsports Center operated by the victim E, and (ii) the office and corridor against which the Defendants resisted by the Defendants were the victim, are completely and completely with the F Sports Center’s business site.