beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant erroneously explained the terms of the purchase of the automobile purchased by lease to the victim.
The defendant did not have any intention to interfere with the business of the victim because he demanded 2 million won after gathering the house and the victim rejected it, and there was no intention to interfere with the business of the victim.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. In the establishment of a crime of interference with the judgment of misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles, the result of the business interference is not required to actually occur, and there is sufficient risk of causing the result of the business interference. Thus, it does not necessarily require the intention of interference with the business purpose or planned business interference, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interference with another person's business due to his own act, and its recognition or predictability is not definite, but it is not definite, but it is so-called willful negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7943, May 24, 2012). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the defendant found the car store where the damaged person works together with his wife, and the injured person caused damages KRW 2 million by mistakenly explaining the terms of the automobile purchase.
The above money was demanded by the victim to pay, and the victim rejected it, and the victim expressed a desire to the victim. ② At the time, there were many customers who purchased a vehicle or scam in the above store, which led to the victim's wife and the entrance to the store. ③ At the above entrance, the defendant took a bath by scambling the victim's scam at the above entrance, and scam of the victim two times.