beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) did not interfere with the victim’s business by exercising force as stated in the facts charged of this case at the date and place indicated in the instant facts charged.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.
Since the defendant's written opinion on January 13, 2020 submitted by his defense counsel was submitted after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal expires, the grounds for appeal filed by the defendant shall be arranged based on the grounds for appeal submitted by the defendant, but the details of the written opinion submitted by the defense counsel shall be considered only to the extent that
However, the argument that the illegality of the defendant's act is excluded as "political act" among the contents of the written opinion presented by the above defense counsel is not a supplement to the defendant's grounds for appeal, but a new argument that is not included in the original statement of grounds for appeal submitted by the defendant. Thus, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, and even if ex officio
2. Determination
A. “In the crime of interference with business” in the relevant legal doctrine refers to all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will, without asking either tangible or intangible, or in reality, the victim’s free will is not required. However, in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., the determination of whether it constitutes force ought to be made by objectively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time 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 2011Do12440, May 23, 2013). Moreover, the establishment of the crime of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of the result of interference with business.