logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.13 2017노4869
업무방해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant is running hotel business in C Lebes (hereinafter “the instant building”); (b) one of the owners of the instant building suspended the supply of electricity illegally; and (c) such other party’s act is not worth legal protection.

Therefore, in order to supply electricity against this, the act as stated in the decision of the defendant constitutes self-help (self-help).

In addition, the defendant only managed the electrical ship room to prevent the power failure, so there is no specific interference with the work.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that convicted the facts charged is illegal.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion that the business is not legally protected, the Defendant alleged that the other party B was unreasonably blocking the supply of electricity, and thus, the other party’s above act subject to protection of interference with the business of this case is a business without legally protected value. In light of the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below, the duty subject to protection of interference with the business of this case is not the discontinuance of the other party B’s supply of electricity, but the building management duty performed by the management office of the building of this case and the employees belonging to the controlled entity, as stated in this part of the facts charged. This part of the Defendant’s assertion constitutes a business subject to protection of interference with the business of this case under the Criminal Act.

B. As to the assertion that there is no specific interference with the business, the conclusion of the crime of interference with the business does not require the actual occurrence of the result of the interference with the business, but there is sufficient risk of causing the interference with the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3231, Mar. 29, 2002). The evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.

arrow