beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The summary of each of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant served as the Dong representative of the 8th class 204 unit of the D apartment of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
A. A. Around September 28, 2011, at the meeting room for the representatives of the occupants of the above apartment, the victim E, who is the head of the management office of the above apartment, is gathered with the representative of the Dong, and the meeting was held to select the defect diagnosis company of the apartment, thereby obstructing the progress of the council of occupants’ representatives of the above victims by force, such as: (a) the victim’s desire to “Is about why he/she will hear the end of the ward’s house; and (b) the victim’s council
B. On July 25, 2012, the victim was found in the above management office where he had been employed, and the management office employee F was requested and issued a civil petition, and the document was obstructed the apartment management work of the said victim by force after having been issued to the management office employee of the management office and the resident G in the area where the name is unknown.
2. Determination
A. “In the crime of interference with business” in the crime of interference with business refers to any force capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will. As such, not only violence threats, but also social and economic status and pressure based on the right and interest, etc. are included therein, and in reality, the victim’s free will is not required to control, but also 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, whether it constitutes force ought to be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons, form of force, type of duty, type of duty, status of the victim, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009). Moreover, the crime of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of a result of interference with business, but may result in interference with business.