[1] The meaning of "to interfere with business" in the crime of interference with business

[2] The case holding that the crime of interference with business is established because the document delivery business company interferes with the document delivery business of the above company, where the defendant puts a leaflet that slanders a specific religion in the package of documents requested by customers to deliver, and the defendant delivers it together with the above company's sunset

[1] "Interference with business" in the crime of interference with business includes not only interference with the execution of business itself, but also interference with the management of business widely.

[2] The case holding that the crime of interference with business is established by interfering with document delivery business of the above company, where the defendant collected a leaflet that slanders a specific religion in the package of documents requested from customers for delivery, and delivered it together, the crime of interference with business is established

[1] Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Tae-sik et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 98No6316 delivered on October 14, 1998

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, after reviewing the evidence specified in the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, the court below which affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that held that the defendant was sent together with the gathering of English religious leaflets (hereinafter the former part of this case) with a content that defames any other religion among the believers, it cannot be said that the judgment of the court of first instance that affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance, which held that the defendant was sent along with the gathering of printed materials for the missionary work from the victim company's personnel in the packaging of documents scheduled to be sent

2. On the second ground for appeal

‘Interference with business' in the crime of interference with business includes not only interference with the execution of business itself, but also hindering the management of business widely.

If the facts are as determined by the court below, the victim company's business of delivering documents at the customer's request and delivered them together with the documents of this case that the customer did not request the delivery in the performance of its business, and the person who received the documents is mistaken for the delivery of the documents as well as the above documents, and the former part of this case also slanders the customer who requested the delivery, and thus it is difficult to be accepted by social norms. As such, the content of the former part of this case seriously slanders a specific religion and thus it is difficult to be accepted by social norms, it ultimately results in the victim's business in violation of the purpose of entrustment to the customer who requested the delivery, and it cannot be said that the document itself requested the delivery was delivered without being damaged and thus it does not interfere with the victim's business. In addition, it cannot be said that the paper country issued the risk of undermining the management of the victim's business.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant interfered with the victim's business of delivering documents by inserting the former part of this case in the package of documents requested by the customer, thereby allowing the victim company to deliver documents together, is reasonable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the crime of interference with business as alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. On the third ground for appeal

If the facts are as determined by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the intention of interference with business since it is recognized that the defendant had the awareness that he had to collect the former part of this case in the packaging of documents and to send it together, and it is sufficient to recognize the intention of interference with business on the ground that the defendant engaged in such act for the purpose of missioning the doctrine of new spawn and that the intention of interference with business is not denied. Therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the defendant did not have the intention of interference with business cannot

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)