beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that a credit card company employee recommended matters such as the personal response of his/her customer (defendant) and the failure to provide convenience, etc., and sought the head office to receive his/her apology, and there was no interference with the duties of security personnel.
Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant wishes to propose complaints related to the Hyundai Card prior to the instruction of the building in which Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. is located and the Skyd World Co., Ltd., and receive apologys.
In other words, the defendant continued to ask the upper person, such as the president, to meet the upper person, and demanded a large amount of interest. ② Even though the staff and the security personnel of the guidance team explained the defendant that they should take a legitimate procedure, the defendant continued to ask the upper person to meet the above person. If the defendant's demand is accepted, the defendant's entry would be forced to enter the upper person (through the spart) without being supported by it.
In full view of the fact that: (a) the relationship between the information and training staff and the security personnel have to respond to other civil petitioners, and the relationship that the defendant had been able to carry out normal guidance duties as seen above, and that the defendant had failed to do so; and (b) the defendant had to have been able to carry out his/her normal guidance duties; (c) although the defendant could take lawful procedures for expressing his/her opinions on the matters of complaint held by him/her, demanding the information and training staff and security personnel to leave without standing persons, even if the defendant is a consumer, it is recognized that the defendant could have interfered with the duties of the security personnel by exercising force that constitutes the crime of interference with his/her duties.
Therefore, the court below erred in the facts of this case.