beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On December 26, 2018, the Defendant: (a) from around 21:20 to around 22:10, the Defendant: (b) was unable to demand KRW 20,000 of the drinking value from “D” operated by the victim C, which was under the influence of the victim C from around 21:20 to around 22:10,00; and (c) was unable to demand KRW 20,000 of the drinking value, and the Defendant obstructed the victim’s singing business by force, such as: (a) the victim took a bath with a large voice of about 50 minutes; and (b) the victim took another customer who had been in the place going to the outside of the place.
2. Determination
A. The threat of force, which is a means of the crime of interference with business, refers to any means of suppression or confusion of a person’s free will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16718, Feb. 28, 2013). Although the actual suppression of the victim’s free will by force is not required by the threat of force, it should reach the degree sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s superior position, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do495 delivered on May 28, 1999, etc.). B.
According to the record, the following facts and circumstances are revealed.
① At around 21:37 on the day of the instant case, the Defendant voluntarily reported 112 as a result of a vision due to the victim’s drinking value.
The victim did not report to the police on the ground of the defendant's obstruction of duty or disturbance.
② The victim stated, at the police station, that “I would like to give 8,000 won in money, I reported 12 to the Defendant. I saw that the Defendant her flaps, such as cutting off the clothes on the uniforms of the police officer, and her clothes were presented to confirm the police officer’s name. I saw the Defendant’s flabing of the police officer. I am out that the Defendant’s insulting the police officer was satisfy in insulting the police officer.” Before the police officer was dispatched to the scene, the Defendant was not able to avoid disturbance, such as her abusiveing or her flabing the Defendant’s flabing, etc., with a large voice to the victim, and the Defendant’s duty was obstructed by the act committed by the police officer prior to being dispatched.