The defendant shall be innocent.

1. 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 건물철거업자로, 2012. 7. 1. 22:00경 대전 서구 C, 3층 건물에서, 피해자 D가 그 건물 2층에서 ‘E’라는 상호로 식당을 영업하고 있다는 사실을 알면서도 그 건물 2층 외벽을 포함한 총 3층 건물 외벽에 붉은색 락카로 “철거” 등의 문구를 수십 회 적어넣고, “붕궤위험 맞춤법상 ‘붕괴(崩壞)위험’이 맞으나, 피고인이 걸은 현수막에는 공소사실 기재와 같이 “붕궤위험”이라고 쓰여있다. ”이라는 문구가 적힌 현수막 3개를 붙여놓음으로써 위력으로 피해자의 식당 영업을 방해하였다.

2. Determination

A. The term “comforcing force” in the crime of interference with business refers to any force capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will. As such, not only violence, intimidation, but also social, economic, political status and pressure by the right and interest, etc. are included therein, and in reality, it does not require a restraint of the victim’s free will. However, it refers to a force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, whether it constitutes force ought to be determined objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and place of the crime, motive and purpose of the crime, number of persons, capacity, type of duty, type of duty, status of the victim, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9186, Nov. 25, 2010). B.

As to this case, the following circumstances acknowledged by this Court and evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court: ① the Defendant was requested to remove the remainder of the building, excluding part of the second floor in the restaurant business, from among the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and the third floor buildings, and ② the Defendant was requested to remove the building outside the outer wall of the building so as not to make it difficult for the Defendant to keep the users from being able to compensate for the damages due to the experience of the removal before the removal.