beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding Defendant did not proceed with the construction of the factory site of the complainant at the time of the installation of a container in Jinsung-gun E (hereinafter “instant land”), and the construction of the factory site of the complainant was not permitted by the competent authority. Thus, the construction of the factory site of the complainant does not constitute “business of protecting the complainant from interference with the business.” Since the Defendant installed a container for the protection of the right to lease of the D company with the representative director, there was no intention to interfere with the construction of the complainant.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Improper sentencing (the lower court’s punishment: KRW 2,00,000, and the Defendant stated only the mistake of facts on the first trial date of the first trial of the first instance court, but it is deemed that the Defendant alleged as the ground for appeal in light of the purport stated in the reasons for appeal.)
2. Determination
A. 1) The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower judgment.
2) The lower court, in relation to interference with business, refers to the business or affairs that are engaged in an occupation or continuously and are worth protecting from invasion by another person’s unlawful act, and is not necessarily a lawful contract or administrative act, etc. which is the basis of the business, but a “business” which is the object of the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act must have the value of protecting under the Criminal Act from an illegal invasion by another person’s occupation or continuous engaged in business. Thus, in a case where a certain business or activity itself has anti-sociality to the extent that it is considerably unacceptable due to the degree of illegality, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a “business” subject to the protection of interference with business.