logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.10.11 2017노2116
업무방해
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) cannot be deemed as a business worthy of legal protection.

2. Determination 1) The “business” subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act is an occupation or a continuous business, which is worth protecting from harm caused 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 becomes the foundation of social activities. Even if there are substantive or procedural defects in the process of commencement or performance of the business, the degree does not reach a degree that it is socially acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4430, Nov. 28, 2013). The lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged on the ground that, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances in its judgment, the victim’s medical treatment existed around the date and time stated in the facts charged, and the business constitutes a business worthy of legal protection.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below compared with the evidence, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Unlike the judgment below, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendants

[The court below determined that the contract of the same business of this case is a partnership agreement, and in particular, the association where medical personnel provide medical treatment at their respective clinics, such as this case, has shown that each of the medical personnel is sufficiently exposed to the member's work nature in relation to the "medical treatment" for each of the customers (patient).

The Defendants’ instant case.

arrow