(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.08.30 2019노880

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) 서울북부지방법원 2019.08.30 2019노880

업무방해

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (a point of interference with business due to force) 1) The Defendant did not directly issue AC an employment order, and AD did not receive the Defendant’s employment order. 2) The Defendant’s talking to the effect that “The head of the Gu is aware of the fact,” cannot be deemed to constitute “defluence” of the crime of interference with business, and the free will of other interview members cannot be deemed to have been pressured.

3) There was no perception of exercising the Defendant’s power. B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the assertion of interference with business, which is a means of the relevant legal doctrine, is sufficient to establish the crime of interference with business even in cases where the propriety or fairness of business is hindered, not in itself, but in cases where the intent of interference with business does not necessarily require assault, intimidation, social, economic, political status, and pressure by right, and it may also be included in indirect exercise via a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do16718, Feb. 28, 2013; 2007Do2178, Jun. 14, 2007). The crime of interference with business is established where the risk of interference with business arises without the actual occurrence of the result of interference with business, and the propriety or fairness of business is hindered. Moreover, the intention of interference with business is not necessarily required to have the intention of interference with business or planned interference with business, but it is sufficiently foreseeable or foreseeable that the business might be interfered with or determined by its own act (see, 2014).

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 6. 14. 선고 2007도2178 판결

-대법원 2013. 2. 28. 선고 2011도16718 판결

-대법원 2018. 7. 24. 선고 2015도12094 판결

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2014.07.25 2014노624

-대전지방법원 2014.06.25 2013노3173

-제주지방법원 2020.07.23 2019노831

-의정부지방법원 2019.11.28 2018노2628