The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On October 1, 2017, the Defendant was boarding a taxi operated by the victim C at a non-permanent area, such as the Suchip height in Suwon-si, Suchip, 19:25 on October 1, 2017. On the other hand, the Defendant: (a) arrived at the frontway of the Tchip, 33 in the same amount of the Gu, and requested a taxi fee from the injured party; (b) rejected it in entirety; and (c) requested from the injured party, even if the Defendant was demanded to leave the taxi from the injured party, the Defendant was “

“Around 10 minutes of the taxi, the taxi did not get off the taxi.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's taxi operation by force.

2. Determination

A. “Authority” of the crime of interference with business refers to any force that may cause suppression and confusion with a free will of a person. As such, violence, intimidation, as well as social, economic, and political status, pressure based on royalty, etc. is not required to control the victim’s free will. In reality, it refers to the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, whether it constitutes force ought to be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and time and place of crime, motive, purpose, number of persons, capacity, form of force, type of duty, type of duty, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9186, Nov. 25, 2010).

A strokea strokea

Facts that “,” etc. made the horses are recognized.

On the other hand, the defendant, at around 20:41:45 (based on the time for video recording of the victim's taxi box; hereinafter the same shall apply), was boarding a taxi in the victim's operation, and the victim "I wish to go to go to the forest" to ask for destination.