A. Scope of business subject to protection of the crime of interference with business

(b) The case holding that where a lessor of a building conducts a single landscaping construction before the leased building in compliance with the direction of the head of the Gu to urge landscaping construction, it does not constitute “business” under the above paragraph (a)

(a) “Business” subject to protection of the crime of interference with business refers to a business or business that continues to be engaged in on the basis of an occupation or social status, and includes an incidental business closely related to such main business;

(b) The case holding that where a lessor of a building only engages in a single landscaping construction before the leased building in compliance with the direction of the head of the Gu to urge landscaping construction, it does not constitute “business” under the above paragraph (a);

Article 314 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Gangwon-gu

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No4384 delivered on October 7, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance. The defendants were those who rent the first floor among the fourth floor of the building owned by the victim and engage in the letop business, Mapppp business. On September 4, 1990, when the defendants jointly conducted the above letop business, they did not have good appraisal such as the victim and the above letosp business due to the termination of the lease contract between the victim and the above letosp, before the above building, and ordered the head of Dongdaemun-gu office to urge landscaping construction of the above building, and ordered the defendants to perform landscaping construction work before the above building without causing harm to the defendants, and the defendant 2 did so by cutting off the front side of the letosp business in front of the above letosp business, and the defendant 1 tried to interfere with the above letospian by force, thereby obstructing the above letosp and harming the defendants by spreading the crime of interference with business.

2. As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

From the time of the police investigation, the Defendants consistently denied the above facts of the crime while keeping the victim’s scambling with Defendant 1. According to the records, there are statements made by the victim, Nonindicted 1, and 2 as evidence conforming to the above facts of the crime among the evidence employed by the lower court.

Therefore, according to the records, the victim's statement was made in a health room and the first instance court's statement as to the credibility of the victim's statement. According to the records, the victim's statement was made and the victim's statement was made in the court of first instance, and the victim's statement was made in the court of first instance that he did not have any person who was sent to the above scene at the time when he was sent to the above scene. The victim who was sent to the police station did not have any person who was sent to the above scene at the time when he was sent to the above scene. The victim who was sent to the police station was not sent to the police station, but obstructed the defendants' tree depth, and the defendant's statement was made that only the victim was knife by keeping the above police officer's statement. In light of the records, it was not clear that there was no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the above police officer's statement, as at the time of the above judgment, and if the victim and the defendant were physically assaulted due to the termination of the above Estop.

Next, it is difficult to expect objectivity in light of the relationship with the victim since Non-Indicted 1 is the same as the victim's birth, and Non-Indicted 1 was the person living together with the victim, and Non-Indicted 2 was the person living together with the victim, and it is recognized that he works in the part of the victim's house. Furthermore, in light of the relationship with the victim, it is difficult to expect objectivity. Furthermore, the victim made a statement that Defendant 1 was scambling the victim's chest and Defendant 2 was sealed, and Non-Indicted 1 was scambling the victim, and Non-Indicted 3 made a statement that Defendant 2 was scambling the victim, and that Defendant 1 was scambling the victim again, and Non-Indicted 3 made a statement that Defendant 2 was scambling the victim with the victim, and thus, the above statement of the victim's specific act does not coincide with each other (the above statement made by Defendant 1 was scambling the victim, and it is also doubtful with the above criminal facts.

In addition, the court below adopted a part of the statement of the first instance court witness Kim Young-young as evidence of guilt, but the content of the statement was closely sealed and unafford each other, and this alone is insufficient to take it into account as evidence to acknowledge the facts of assault by the defendants.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that accepted the statements of the above victim and recognized the criminal facts in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act against the defendants is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the arguments pointing this out are justified

3. Regarding interference with business

The term "business" subject to protection of the crime of interference with business refers to a business or business that continues to be engaged in on the basis of an occupation or social status, and an incidental business that is closely related to such main business, but it does not constitute a single-time business (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do1752 delivered on September 12, 1989).

According to the facts found by the court below in this case, it cannot be viewed as a continuous incidental business which is closely related to the business of landscaping of the victim who interfered with the defendants based on the victim's occupational or social status or the business of leasing the building, which is the main business, and it is nothing more than a single-time incidental business.

Nevertheless, the lower court committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on duties subject to protection of the crime of interference with business.

4. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.