beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. From May 16, 2012 to operate the instant private teaching institute jointly with the victim, the Defendant was found only to find out the instant private teaching institute in order to discuss the methods of joint operation of the private teaching institute, and did not interfere with the victim’s education business.
The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) In the crime of interference with business, “comprehion” in the crime of interference with business refers to any force capable of suppressing a person’s free will; the person’s free will is not tangible or intangible; the person’s social and political status as well as pressure by threat; the victim’s free will is not practically controlled by force; the crime of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of interference with business; and the risk of interference with business arises (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do3231, Mar. 29, 2002). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant found the Plaintiff in the instant private teaching institute, while the victim was engaged in the business of giving birth to the student at the time, the fact that the victim was unable to fully undergo the business by having the victim or the victim purchase and sell the lid lid and confirmed the trademark and received the business from the victim.
From August 201, the Defendant jointly operated the instant private teaching institute with the victim from around January 201, and claimed the return of the investment amount to the victim by asserting the destruction of the operation from around January 2012. The victim returned to the Defendant the amount of KRW 30 million up to May 15, 2012.