beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal (in fact and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the defendant interfered with the affairs of bidding by the managing contractor of the victim management body (hereinafter “instant bidding affairs”) was conducted independently without the resolution of the general meeting of the managing body of the victims, and the agreement was reached against the sectional owners and the date of opening the bidding to postpone one week, and thus, the instant bidding affairs cannot be deemed as a duty worthy of protection under the Criminal Act. Since the defendant merely attached the manager D’s arbitrary opening of the bid bag, it does not interfere with the affairs of the managing body of the victims by force.
Even if it is not so, the defendant's act is merely a legitimate act permitted under the social norms, since it is intended to restrain the manager from conducting unfair bid.
Nevertheless, the court below rendered a judgment of conviction against the defendant by misunderstanding facts or understanding the legal principles by mistake.
2. Determination
A. “Business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act, which constitutes a business subject to the crime of interference with business, is an occupation or business engaged in continuously or continuously, which is worth protecting from infringement by another person’s unlawful act. Since such business is not necessarily necessary to be lawful or valid, whether it is a business worthy of legal protection is determined depending on whether it actually consists of work and is based on social activities, and there are substantive or procedural defects in the process of commencing or performing such business.
Even if such degree of protection does not reach an extent that social life is considerably reflectable or that is equally assessed in terms of legal protection, protection of the crime of interference with business shall be subject to protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9828, Apr. 23, 2015). The lower court and the first instance court.