(a) Liability to commit the act of intrusion on the multi-company business places operated independently by one of the co-owners;

B. Nature of power under Article 314 of the Criminal Act

(c) An offense of insult and insult, which is referred to in the Bavae de Act;

The crime of interference with business is established in the act of repeatedly repeating maliciouss with a considerable time due to the intrusion of fire in the multilateral bank, or bringing in other instrument than shooting, etc.

Article 314 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Seoul High Court, Seoul High Court, Seoul High Court, etc.

The ground of appeal No. 1, however, is without merit, that this building cannot be viewed as a kind of oil that prevents the illegality of the place in which the Defendant intrudes into a multi-business place operated solely by Nonindicted Party 1 due to sexual intercourse between two persons at a specific place in the building and Nonindicted Party 1, even if this building is jointly owned by the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1.

However, according to the evidence based on the original judgment, it is not sufficient to recognize the contents of the judgment, and in addition, in the case of the so-called so-called threat of force in Article 314 of the Criminal Act, as to whether the desire of the novels meet the requirements for the crime of interference with business, the so-called force" in Article 314 of the Criminal Act refers to the ability to cause confusion with the freedom of wrong will, and in light of the case of this case, it cannot be said that in the case of this case, it is necessary to rest and hold a studio in a place where it is a place where it is necessary to have a constant temperature, such as repeating a bad faith by a person who intrudes upon a fire, or bringing in other shootings, it is difficult to urge the visitors to do so, so that it is not a interference with the business of a pans.

In each case of the above third point of the defendant's decision, the words "the Domine Act, etc." with respect to non-indicted 1 in wartime cannot be viewed as a specific statement of facts only with such expression words alone, and it cannot be viewed as defamation. However, despite the fact of insult, the court below erred by misunderstanding it and misunderstanding it.