logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.09.29 2016노1366
업무방해
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) that the Defendant, at the site of the F’s new construction of multi-household housing, was unable to move up to the floor of the access road to the site of the F’s new construction of multi-household housing so that F may not perform construction work, constitutes “power” of interference with business affairs, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, acquitted.

As to the issue of whether the Defendant, on September 9, 2015 and September 15, 2015, sited on the floor from the access road to the new site of the F-based multi-household construction works, thereby preventing the entry of construction vehicles, constitutes “power” as to interference with business affairs.

“Authority” means any force that may cause confusion with the free will of a person. The term “compact” refers to any force that may cause confusion with the free will of a person, regardless of tangible or intangible, and is included in intimidation as well as social, economic, political status, and pressure by authorities. In reality, it does not require pressure of the victim’s free will. However, it means the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, the determination of whether the Defendant constitutes force ought to be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time and place of the crime, motive, purpose of the crime, number of persons, capacity, form of force, type of duty, status of the victim, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4430 Decided November 28, 2013). According to the evidence submitted by the police, such as the statement to F, on-site photographs, etc., the fact that the Defendant was unable to enter the road by the Defendant and the female.

arrow