[1] The meaning of "business", "defensive force" and "disfensive with business" among the elements of the crime of interference with business

[2] The case affirming the judgment below that the defendant interfered with Eul's business by force, in case where the defendant, an executive officer of Gap corporation, was in conflict of opinion between the agency business operator Eul and Eul corporation, and the agency business operator Eul paid a certain amount of usage fee and obstructed access authority to the free bulletin board among the entire internal computer network and customer management system of Gap corporation, which used for the exchange of sales information

[3] The contents of the “Objection” necessary to establish the crime of interference with business

[1] Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 13 and 314(1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Do3767 Decided May 14, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1213), Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8701 Decided April 15, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 797), Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2178 Decided June 14, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732 Decided September 10, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1722), Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6754 Decided April 8, 2010 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Do3044 decided April 10, 192 (Gong1992, 1639)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Won, Attorneys Lee Il-soo et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009No13 Decided April 23, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with business by deceptive means or by force. Here, the term “business” refers to all affairs or business that continue to be engaged in on the basis of his/her occupation or social status. Whether his/her main business is or incidental, and even if he/she is a single-time business, it constitutes a case in which he/she continues to engage in business to a certain extent or is closely related to his/her original business that continued in his/her occupation or social life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8701, Apr. 15, 2005). In this case, the term “defensive force” includes not only violence, intimidation, but also pressure by social, economic, and political status, and power, but also includes 90Do2178, Jun. 14, 2007, and also includes 90Do297, etc., which can be directly engaged in business or 97.

In full view of the evidence of the first instance court, the victim, who is an agent, paid a certain amount of fee for use of the above service network to Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 1”) and confirmed that Nonindicted Co. 1’s CBnet-based computer system (hereinafter referred to as “CBnet”) had been used to provide services, such as public notice of business affairs, contact between employees, and provision of business data, as an electronic computer system; hereinafter referred to as “CBnet”) and customer management electronic computer system (SP) to assist business operators or their general business operators to efficiently conduct their business activities; hereinafter referred to as “CBnet” in this case’s 20% order to prevent sales of vehicles through the 20th order of the 2nd order of the 2nd order of the 2nd order of the 2nd order of the 2nd order of the 2nd order of the 2nd order of the 4th order of the 2nd order of the 2nd order of the 2nd order of the 2nd order of the 200th order.

Examining the facts acknowledged by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the judgment of the court below that the defendant interfered with the victim's business by force by blocking access to the free bulletin board among documentarynets as a whole and customer management system (SPS) is just, and there is no illegality such as in violation of logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and the remaining grounds of appeal are merely erroneous for the admission of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the court below's exclusive authority, and thus,

2. On the second ground for appeal

In the establishment of the crime of interference with business, the result of interference with business is not required to actually occur, and there is sufficient risk of causing interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do3044, Apr. 10, 1992). Thus, the intention does not necessarily require the intention of interference with business for the purpose of interference with business or planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interference with another person's business due to its own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also uncertain (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9410, Jan. 15, 2009).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable that the court below acknowledged that there was an incomplete perception of the result or risk of interference with the business of the defendant at the time of blocking the above connection on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and that the above blocking act cannot be viewed as a legitimate act which is reasonable to the extent permitted by social norms. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act and the establishment of the crime of interference with business, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The allegation in the grounds of appeal on

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)