logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2021.01.20 2019노3411
업무방해
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) had a legitimate authority to manage C’s quarrying site on July 25, 2018, when the pertinent agreement was duly terminated by giving a certificate of content to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on July 25, 2018 (hereinafter “F”), the Defendant, the representative of F at the time of the instant agreement, had a legitimate authority to manage C’s quarrying site.

not be deemed to have been terminated, even if the above consignment management agreement was not terminated.

Even if the “business” subject to the protection of interference with the business under the Criminal Act does not necessarily require a lawful contract, but includes the business that is actually being carried out in peace. Thus, as long as the victim actually occupied the machinery installed in C at the same time, separately from whether it belongs to the ownership of the crypsaw construction machinery (hereinafter “the machinery of this case”), it constitutes a crime of interference with the victim’s business by blocking the front of the machinery of this case from a dump truck.

In addition, the victim suffered losses of KRW 13.79 million due to the obstruction of the defendant's business.

In addition, the victim's economic damage has not been specifically proved, even if so,

Even if the crime of interference with business is an abstract dangerous offender, it is sufficient to cause the risk of interference with business, and it does not require that the result of interference with business actually occurs. In this respect, the defendant's act constitutes a crime of interference with business.

B. A. A. As the Defendant did not file a provisional disposition or lawsuit on ownership of the instant machinery, there is no urgent reason to exercise the power for remedy of rights. Thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act.

(c)

Nevertheless, on a different premise, the defendant's person, such as the facts charged, is the same.

arrow