beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In order to identify the whereabouts of F who caused fraud to the Defendant, the Defendant is merely seeking a victim who had worked as the head of F at the time of operating the real estate brokerage office, and is not seeking the victim for the purpose of interfering with the business or intentionally.
In addition, the defendant has a fact that the victim made a defect in his speech and behavior that disregards the defendant, and the defendant did not exercise his authority, such as taking the victim's bath or taking the examination, as stated in the facts charged in this case.
(b) Sentencing (a fine of two million won is imposed);
2. Determination
A. According to the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, according to the statement of the victim with specific and consistent credibility (the statement of the written statement prepared by the police and the statement of the trial court at the trial court), the fact that the defendant had expressed the victim’s desire and had the examination conducted as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.
Meanwhile, in relation to the crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, the term "influence of business" includes not only interference with a particular business, but also hindering the smooth progress of business operations. It is sufficient that the result of interference with business should actually occur in the establishment of the crime of interference with business, but also there is a danger that interference with business may cause a result of interference with business. It does not necessarily require intention to be the purpose of interference with business or planned interference with business, and it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interference with another's business due to one's own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also indefinitely recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4141, May 24, 2012).