beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The term “power of force” of the crime of interference with business affairs refers to any force that may cause confusion with the free will of a person, without asking whether it is either tangible or intangible, or intangible, and the victim’s intent of freedom is not practically restricted.
However, in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., the extent sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will is determined objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time and place of the crime, motive and purpose of the crime, number of persons, capacity, mode of force, type of work, status of the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do10956, Oct. 27, 2016, etc.). 2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant was a person who was in charge of facilities, boiler, electricity, etc. in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (hereinafter “Saeb”), and (b) around March 18:0, 2015, the Defendant unfairly informed the Defendant of the location and location of the boiler, etc. in the process of transferring the instant letter of intent to the victim E (hereinafter “victim”), and (c) the Defendant’s position and location at which the boiler was installed, such as the power distribution method, etc.
“.....”
3. As to this, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found that the above act by the Defendant, who refused to take over the business affairs, constitutes “power” as provided by the crime of interference with the business affairs, and thereby, can be recognized as having interfered with the victim’s privacy or management affairs.
Based on the judgment of the court below, the charged facts of this case were convicted.
4. However, in light of the following circumstances known by the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is difficult to accept.