beta
Text
We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding or misapprehension of legal principles (defendants) ① (a) the Defendant, at the time, took a computer monitor by hand, but there was no problem in preparing a public notice of invalidation of the election of the president of the representative of occupants, and thus, there was a crime of interference with business by force.
In addition, the first instance court convicted the Defendant, thereby misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding the legal principles of obstruction of business, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although the duty of preparing a written public announcement without a lawful resolution of invalidation of election or giving an opportunity to make a statement.
B. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court (the final sentence of KRW 500,000), which was unfair in sentencing (the final sentence of KRW 500,00) is too uneasible and unfair.
2. First of all, we examine the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine.
The term "power of force" of the crime of interference with business refers to any force that may cause confusion with the free will of a person, either tangible or intangible, and thus, it is not a threat of violence, including social and economic status and pressure based on the right. In reality, it is not necessary to control the victim's free will. However, it refers to a force sufficient to suppress the victim's free will in light of the offender's status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, the determination of whether the act constitutes force should be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time and place of the crime, motive, purpose of the crime, number of persons, capacity, form of force, type of duty, and the victim's status (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 209). In light of the aforementioned legal principle, the first instance court's lawful adoption of the evidence and examination of the victim's free will beyond the scope of the victim's free will at the time of social confusion.