logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.11.28 2013노2970
업무방해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant received only KRW 70,000 among KRW 80,000 per day and did not receive KRW 10,000 per day, and the defendant demanded it, and there is no possibility of obstructing the victim's business. As a result, even if the defendant interfered with the victim's business, this constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, and thus, does not constitute a crime.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of interference with business as to whether the crime of interference with business was exercised, the term “comfort force” in the crime of interference with business as to whether the crime of interference with business was committed includes not only assault and intimidation, but also pressure by social, economic, political status and right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2178, Jun. 14, 2007) with all tangible and intangible forces capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2178, Jun. 14, 2007). In short, even if a person is not directly engaged in business, the act of making another person unable or considerably difficult to perform his/her normal business as

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732 Decided September 10, 2009). “Interference with business” in the crime of interference with business includes not only interference with a specific business itself, but also hindering the smooth progress of business performance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do3767 delivered on May 14, 199). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant, around 10:00 on December 12, 2012, at the victim’s first attendance at the restaurant (4:00 per month) and worked until 19:00 on the same day. However, the Defendant did not go to the above restaurant from around 19:00 on December 12, 201, and the first attendance at the restaurant operated by the victim. However, there was a dispute over whether the Defendant would pay daily allowances between the Defendant and the victim.

arrow