logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.08.21 2013노989
업무방해
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were found to have been removed by the Defendants in the instant salt farm, which is salt production facilities, but they did not interfere with the Defendant’s salt production business since around February 2012, which is the date of the instant crime. At the time, the Defendants did not know that the victims installed and manage salt production facilities by leasing the instant salt farm, and the Defendants were removed out old existing facilities as the purchaser of the instant salt farm, and thus did not have any intention to interfere with business, and even if the Defendants did not exercise their power to interfere with business, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged with the crime of interference with business and convicted the Defendants, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s respective punishment (a fine of KRW 300,000) imposed on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles refers to work or business engaged in work continuously or continuously for a certain period of time, which is the basis of social activities. The contract, etc., which forms the basis of such work is not necessarily a legitimate but at least a value to be protected from infringement by other person’s unlawful act.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the victim’s lease of the salt farm from E, the owner of the salt farm located in the Nanannam-gun, Seoul-gun (hereinafter “instant salt farm”) around January 23, 2006, and the victim produces salt by installing salt production facilities and pays part of salt produced by rent to E, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.

arrow