2015No1366 Interference with business affairs

A

Defendant

Maximum leather (prosecution, public trial)

Attorney G (Korean National Assembly)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2015Gohap343 Decided December 17, 2015

December 15, 2016

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

A. The Defendant had no intention to interfere with business because he/she removed documents, such as written public notice, in order to collect evidence to be used in a lawsuit seeking invalidation of qualification for the members of the C Apartment Election Commission.

B. The election management duties of the election commission of this case do not constitute an illegal act and thus constitute a duty of protection under the Criminal Act.

C. The Defendant’s act of removing only a part of the notice of the instant decision does not constitute a force exercise.

D. Since the chairman of the instant election commission illegally appointed a representative of apartment units and spread false information to the representative of apartment units, the Defendant lost the honor of the Defendant’s children, the Defendant’s act is removed from the public notice to prevent this. Therefore, the Defendant’s act is not contrary to the social norms, and is not unlawful.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged

From September 2014 to November 17, 2014, the Defendant removed documents, such as “the meeting announcement of the election commission and emergency countermeasure committee meeting held on September 26, 2014, the meeting announcement of September 30, 2014, the meeting announcement of the second election commission and emergency countermeasure committee meeting held on September 30, 2014, the meeting announcement of October 6, 2014, the meeting announcement of the meeting announcement (1,5, and6) as a result of the visit voting and dismissal on October 16, 2014, the representative elected by each Dong, the adviser elected on October 23, 2014, the candidate’s publication, and the ballot-counting place announcement, etc., which were published by the said apartment election commission, and interfere with the election management commission of the victim of the apartment by force of the Defendant.

B. Determination

The court below held that the defendant's act of removing 5 times the notice posted on the elevator bulletin board, which is 113 1 Ra, of the apartment of this case, constituted the threat of interference with business, and found the defendant guilty of the charge of this case.

The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another’s business by deceptive means or by force. The term “defluence” includes not only assault and intimidation, but also social, economic and political status and pressure by royalty as all tangible and intangible force that may cause confusion with the free will of people. Even if such force is not necessarily directly imposed on a person engaged in business, it includes acts creating a certain physical condition and making it impossible or considerably difficult for the person to perform his/her duties free and normal performance of duties (Supreme Court Decision 201Do7943 Decided May 24, 2012). The contents of the charges in the instant case include that it is difficult for the instant apartment election commission to view that the Defendant’s act was carried out by an act of causing confusion or confusion among the above apartment units on the bulletin board, which was attached to each of the instant apartment units by the Defendant, at the time of exercising his/her right to enter into the election commission’s normal performance of duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7543, May 25, 2019, etc.).

Thus, since the facts charged in this case are not a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of the court below which found the above facts charged guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

【Discretionary Judgment】

The summary of the facts charged against the defendant is the same as that of paragraph (1) of Article 2, and as seen in paragraph (2) of Article 2, since the facts charged do not constitute a crime, the above facts charged shall be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the summary of the judgment shall be announced in accordance with Article 58(2) of the Criminal

The presiding judge, judge and Mapo-young

Judges Domincs

Judges Park Jae-young