[1] The meaning that the crime of interference with business results in interference with business (negative) and the "disorder with business" means interference with business

[2] The case holding that the crime of interference with business is established where the victim received a letter of resignation from his employees by means of spreading false facts to his employees, etc.

[1] In the establishment of the crime of interference with business, the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence, but it is sufficient to cause the risk of interference with business, and the "influence with business" includes not only interference with the execution of business itself, but also interference with the management of business widely.

[2] The case holding that the crime of interference with business is established on the ground that the crime of interference with business is committed on the ground that, in case where the chief of the fire-fighting business office, the representative director of the company, receives a letter of resignation from his employees by means of spreading false information to his employees, and the employees collectively submit a letter of resignation to the employees, and there was a risk of leaving his fire-fighting division's duties or suspending his duties, thereby

[1] Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do58 delivered on June 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 2080), Supreme Court Decision 91Do304 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 1483), Supreme Court Decision 92Do1315 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong193, 161), Supreme Court Decision 92Do1645 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong193, 490), Supreme Court Decision 93Do288 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong195, 19595, 196Do197, 1995).

A

Defendant

Attorney B

Suwon District Court Decision 9No2372 delivered on June 21, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the records, the right of the victim to receive services, etc. from the fire-fighting division of the non-indicted corporation, the representative director, and to direct and supervise specific duties belongs to the defendant who has served as the chief of the fire-fighting business. However, since the authority to support human and material facilities and overall profit management and distribution of the above fire-fighting division belongs to the non-indicted corporation, it can be recognized that the above fire-fighting business division belongs to the non-indicted corporation, the fact-finding and the judgment of the court below that recognized the above fire-fighting business division's duties can be performed by the victim who

2. The court below recognized the fact that the defendant received a letter of apology from the employees of the fire-fighting division by using the method of disseminating false information that the defendant decided to organize the fire-fighting division of the above fire-fighting division and that he independently operated the fire-fighting division. In light of the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is just, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in

3. In the establishment of the crime of interference with business, it does not require the result of interference with business actually, but it is sufficient to cause the risk of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do288, Jun. 14, 1994; 96Do2801, Mar. 11, 1997; 96Do2801, etc.). "Interference with business" includes not only interference with the execution of business itself but also interference with the operation of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3767, May 14, 1999). Thus, in this case, the above employees of the fire-fighting division temporarily submit a letter of resignation by submitting it to the employees of the fire-fighting division to leave the fire-fighting division or to suspend the fire-fighting division's business, and thereby, the risk of interference with the operation of the victim's fire-fighting division. Thus, the judgment of the court below which recognized the crime of interference with business is justifiable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)