logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.10.22 2015노747
업무방해등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, posted the results of the supply of the Young PPC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Y PP”), he/she had obtained permission from I to use the materials posted as being provided by I. The D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) operated by the Defendant is merely two or three days different from the Young PP and the scope of its business activities, and thus, there was little damage to the Young PP.

Therefore, although the defendant did not have any intention to interfere with the business of the victim company, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged and erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the intention to interfere with business.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the crime of interference with business contains not only interference with the execution of business itself, but also broad interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do3767, May 14, 1999; 2007Do6754, Apr. 8, 2010). The crime of interference with business does not require actual interference with business, but it is sufficient that there is a risk of causing interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do304, Apr. 10, 1992). Moreover, the purpose of interference with business or planned interference with business is not necessarily required, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interference with another person’s business due to its act, and its recognition or predictability is not only definite but also definite (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4108, Apr. 10, 2005).

arrow