logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.05.26 2017노465
업무방해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant left a middle-class truck at a distance that would pass and parked a vehicle on the front of the Defendant’s house in the same way as that of the flat on the front of the Defendant’s house. As such, the Defendant’s act does not constitute the force of interference with business affairs, and did not intend to interfere with business affairs at the time.

B. Legal principles do not prevent the victim's access to the above road by a misunderstanding of the legal principles, but are merely prohibiting the entry of large-scale dump trucks or bump trucks that may damage the trees belonging to the defendant placed on both sides of the above road or damage underground pipelines due to the passage, and such defendant's act constitutes legitimate defense or legitimate act.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (one million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 as to the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the fact that the term “power” of the crime of obstructing another’s free will is either tangible or intangible, or irrelevant to all force that may cause confusion with another’s free will. As such, intimidation, as well as intimidation, social and economic status and pressure based on the right and interest, etc. are included therein, and in reality, it refers to the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, and surrounding circumstances, etc. Therefore, whether it constitutes force ought to be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and time and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons involved in the crime, form of force, type of duty, type of duty, and status of the victim.

In addition, the power of interference with one's business does not necessarily mean that a person engaged in the business directly terminates a contract, but also means that a certain physical condition sufficient to suppress another's free will is made impossible or considerably difficult for another person to act.

arrow