beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal interferes with the work of the defendant who sits on the neck and joint board without any verification procedure even though the defendant was not likely to mislead each item and joint board in an indefinite manner. This act is sufficient for the threat of force in the crime of interference with the duties of an abstract dangerous offender.
Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant exercised power.
It is difficult to see
In light of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The “power of force” of the crime of interference with another’s duties regarding the crime of interference with another’s duties under the crime of interference with another’s duties is all force that may lead to the suppression and confusion of another’s free will, and is not tangible, intangible, or intangible. In reality, the victim’s will of freedom is not restricted, but should be sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc.
Therefore, the determination of “power” ought to be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and time and place of crime, motive and purpose of crime, number of persons, mode of force, type of duty, type of duty, and the status of the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009, etc.). In addition, the crime of interference with duties is punishable not only by wide scope of power, which is an object of business and means of action, but also by abstract risk of interference with business, in light of all the circumstances at the time of the act, even if it appears to meet the requirements for the crime of interference with business affairs, it should be carefully determined as to whether the crime of interference with business is subject to criminal punishment and whether it constitutes force after examining whether it constitutes force.
B. The following facts are established according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.