Whether students’ attending school and taking lessons in classroom classes constitutes “business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act (negative)

The term "business" protected by the Criminal Act for the crime of interference with business refers to a business or business that continues to be engaged in according to an occupation or other social status. It is merely a right that elementary school students attend school and take lessons in a classroom without compensation as prescribed by Article 31 of the Constitution, a right to receive elementary education, a right to exercise a national compulsory education under Article 12 and Article 13 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or a right to attend school of the parents, or a duty of the State or parents to perform their duties. It does not constitute a "business or business that continues to be engaged in according to an occupation or other social status."

Article 31 of the Constitution; Article 314 of the Criminal Act; Articles 12 and 13 of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Amended by Act No. 11384, Mar. 21, 2012)

Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1256 Decided October 28, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1985) Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4141 Decided May 24, 2012

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney At Law.

Applicant for Compensation

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012No303, 476, 1684, 1811 Decided March 13, 2013

The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, excluding the part concerning the attack as of March 30, 2007, shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division. The appeal on the part concerning the attack as of March 30, 2007 shall be dismissed.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the part of the official conflict as of March 30, 2007.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to this part of the facts charged in light of the evidence and records duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that this part of the facts charged was guilty, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules,

2. The remainder, excluding the Mar. 30, 2007 Mar. 30, 2007, is determined ex officio.

A. In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant was unable to give a bath to Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, a teacher, or to give a bath to the victim students, or that he was unable to provide a school by taking care of the victim students in the classrooms of the first grade and the second grade classes of the first grade elementary school in Daesti Elementary School. On the premise that the “business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act includes the attendance of students, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act as above interfered with the student’s class operation, and found the Defendant to have established

B. However, “business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to a business or business that continues to be engaged in on the basis of an occupation or other social status (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1256, Oct. 28, 2004, etc.). Elementary school students’ attending school and taking lessons in the classroom is merely the right to receive elementary school education without compensation as provided by Article 31 of the Constitution, the right to conduct compulsory education as provided by Article 12 and Article 13 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or the duty to attend school of parents to exercise the State or parents’ rights, but it does not constitute “business or business that continues to be engaged in on the basis of a vocational or other social status,” and it does not constitute “business or business that continues to be engaged in on the basis of a state or parents’ rights.” Thus, even if the defendant committed an act as stated in the judgment of the court below, it cannot be deemed that the student interfered with the student’s business, regardless of whether he

C. Nevertheless, the court below concluded otherwise that students’ taking lessons constitute business as referred to in the crime of interference with business and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the business in the crime of interference with business, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

D. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment regarding the crime of interference with business against the students of Daeung Elementary School should be reversed, and this part of the lower judgment’s remaining guilty part, with the exception of the part concerning interference with business as of March 30, 2007, should be sentenced to a single punishment on the ground that it is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, with the exception of the part concerning

3. Therefore, the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, excluding the part of attack as of March 30, 2007, is all reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's appeal as to the part of attack as of March 30, 2007, is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)