(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.08.31 2016노555 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.08.31 2016노555

업무방해등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the victim company, as it did not cause mistake, dismissal, or land to the victim company, and thus did not interfere with the business by fraudulent means.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 10 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the term “defensive means” in the crime of interference with business by deceptive means means that a person misleads the other party or causes a misunderstanding, mistake, or site in order to achieve the purpose of the act, and the establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence, and if there is a risk of causing interference with business, and it is sufficient that the crime of interference with business is established even in cases where the propriety or fairness of business is obstructed not in itself, but in cases where the performance of business is obstructed (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506 Decided March 25, 2010). The court below held that the act of this case where the defendant posted a game program constitutes a “defensive scheme” by causing the mistake, mistake, or site of the victim company, and that the act of this case

On the other hand, this part of the charges was found guilty.

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s act in the instant facts charged can be seen as “a deceptive scheme” as referred to in the crime of interference with the business, in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles pointing out by the defendant.

1) The defendant.

참조판례

-대법원 2010. 3. 25. 선고 2009도8506 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.19 2017노3599

-대법원 2017.02.21 2016도15144

-의정부지방법원 2017.03.09 2016노2955

-대구지방법원 2018.11.22 2018노3640

-대전지방법원 2018.01.18 2017노563