[1] The meaning of "defensive force" in the crime of interference with business

[2] The case holding that the crime of interference with business is committed by an employee of a lending company using telephone call from the obligor's cell phone to the obligor's cell phone in order to recover loans

[1] In the crime of interference with business, the term "defluence" refers to all the forces that are capable of suppressing and mixing a free will of a person, and the term "defluence" refers to either tangible or intangible or intangible, and includes pressure by social, economic, political status and royalty as well as assault and intimidation, and it does not require actual suppression of the victim's free will by force.

[2] The case holding that the crime of interference with business is committed on the ground that the act of collecting claims beyond the limit permitted by social norms, where an employee of a lending company took legal measures after considering the issue of small amount of interest in arrears in order to recover the loan, and the act of collecting the telephone call from a small-scale signboard business operator to a hundredsular phone of the debtor, constitutes a crime of interference with business, since

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Do1589 delivered on October 12, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3836)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Law Firm Eastern, Attorney Kim In-il

Busan District Court Decision 2004No2420 delivered on November 18, 2004

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the facts charged in this case is that from September 8, 2003 to October 23 of the same year, the Defendant interfered with the signboard business operated by his own in force by putting 460 telephone calls, such as Dongin's house and handphones, in order to urge the payment of interest on KRW 2 million, on the ground that the victim's work at the Busan Branch Office located in Busan, Busan, Busan, where the defendant was located in Busan, Busan, the Busan, the Busan, where the defendant was located in Busan, to demand payment of the interest on KRW 2 million borrowed from the above company.

2. The judgment of the court below

On September 6, 2002, the court below ruled that the victim engaged in the signboard business borrowed 200,000 won to the non-indicted 2 as joint guarantor. On February 12, 2003, the court below decided on February 12, 2008 as the 65.7% per annum; the agreement was made on September 2, 2008; the victim did not pay 100,000 won to the victim because it was not possible for the victim to request the payment of the interest; the victim did not receive 57,91 won short of 50,00 won to the non-indicted 8,000 won to the non-indicted 2,000 won to the non-indicted 4,000 won to the non-indicted 90,000 won to the non-indicted 4,000 won to the non-indicted 9,000 won to the non-indicted 4,000 won to the victim's remaining 9,000 won to the defendant 24.

3. The judgment of this Court

In the crime of interference with business, the term "comfort force" means all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing a free will of a person, and the exercise of creditor's rights should not be held either tangible or intangible or intangible, including assault and intimidation, social, economic, political status, and pressure by the power to pressure the victim's free will (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1589 delivered on October 12, 1995). It is sufficient if the crime of interference with business does not require the actual result of interference with business, and it does not require the risk of interference with business (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do944 delivered on June 28, 1991). If a credit service provider, with superior economic status, has engaged in the act of pressureing the debtor by taking advantage of its status, such act of force and the risk of interference with the debtor's business cannot be exempted from the crime of interference with business.

In light of the records, although the victim was in arrears with interest on loans from September 2003, the amount was not only small amount of money, but also the average of 10 copies per day and 90 days even if the defendant took the lead. Even if the actual number of telephone calls is presumed to be only 19 times, it is reasonable to see that the victim had no choice but to keep out of the rest of the telephone call, and even after having been urged to pay a serious debt, the court below, based on the fact that the victim had been aware of the fact in the monetary process, that the victim had no choice but to cause psychological pressure and fear. However, according to the fact that the victim's act of collecting the interest on the mobile phone was determined by the objective criteria, rather than by force, it is also necessary to recognize that the victim's act of collecting the interest rate and the non-party 1's act of using the non-party 8's act of collecting the interest rate and the non-party 1's act of using the non-party 8's act of collecting the interest on the mobile phone.

Nevertheless, the court below's finding not guilty of the facts charged of this case solely for the above reasons shall not be deemed to have committed an unlawful act of failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the meaning of power or obstruction of business in the crime of interference with business. Accordingly, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Kang-won (Presiding Justice)