logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
대전지방법원 2013.10.10 2013노689
업무방해
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The victim D’s act of removing pine trees can not be an object of the crime of interference with business without obtaining lawful permission, and even if the above permission was lawful, the Defendant’s act should be dismissed as an act for environmental protection, etc. and thus constitutes a justifiable act. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below that the ground for appeal cannot be the object of the crime of interference with business.

On April 14, 201, pursuant to Article 83 of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act (hereinafter “instant site”), the head of Jinjin-gun approved the business plan for the development of tourist farm (hereinafter “instant business plan”). As to the instant site, the act of removing pine trees by the victim constitutes “business” in the crime of interference with business because the permission for cutting standing trees, etc. is deemed granted pursuant to Article 106(2)15 and 17 of the same Act and the permission for the diversion of standing trees, etc. is deemed granted, and the act of cutting or extracting standing trees is possible without any separate permission for cutting standing trees, etc., and in particular, with respect to the removal of pine trees by the victim, the victim’s act of removing pine trees in this case constitutes “business” in the crime of interference with business.

Although the Sil Jin market revoked the approval of the instant project plan on March 29, 2012, the reason for the revocation was that the business operator of the instant project plan did not comply with the conditions of business approval, such as arbitrarily amending the project plan, and that the request for the hearing on October 11, 201 (the request for submission of a plan for securing business funds, etc.) was not complied with, and that is, in the Sil Jin Broadcasting.

arrow