logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.01.15 2014노4085
업무방해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles)

A. It was true that the Defendant found the E dental clinic operated by the victim D at the time of the instant case. However, considering the fact that the Defendant: (a) pointed out that the Defendant was scarbly scarbly scarbly scarbly scarbly caused by the treatment of the framework administered by the victim; and (b) requested appropriate treatment; and (c) the Defendant’s scarbly scarbly scarbly scarbly scarbly scarbly scarbly scarbly scarbly scar

It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had intention to interfere with business.

B. The Defendant’s act constitutes an element of the crime of interference with business.

Even if there is no illegality as a legitimate act, it is justified.

C. Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges of this case guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles as to legitimate acts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of interference with business, the intent of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily require the intent of the purpose of interference with business or planned interference with business, but is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing interference with another person’s business due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only definite but also uncertain, so-called willful negligence is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9410, Jan. 15, 2009). In addition, the term “comfort force” in the crime of interference with business is not classified as any force capable of causing confusion with another person’s free will, but is sufficient if it is sufficiently capable of suppressing the victim’s free will, and there is no need to control the victim’s actual free will, and it is directly terminated to a person engaged in business.

arrow