2020 Highly 141 Business Interference

Defendant Kim, 81 Year Kim, South and North Korea

Residential Ulsan

Kim Jin-jin (prosecution) and private harassment (public trial)

Attorney Kim Kim (Korean National University)

November 27, 2020

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

Around 22:00 on March 19, 2020, the Defendant: (a) divided the low level into Ulsan Metropolitan City bus in the vicinity of the Women's High School in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; (b) the Defendant, a driver of the bus immediately before the arrival at the bus stop at the mother high school; and (c) the victim Lee ○ (the age of 32) who is the driver of the bus, caused a sudden defect in the bus at the bus stop, saying, “I am the bus driver's hick, because I am the bus hick at the wind of the bus pole; and (d) the victim did not stop the bus at the seat of the bus, “I am hick, I am you am you am hick because I am we am you am you am hick because I am we am you am am hick, and do not am hick the victim's desire to drive the bus at the bus stop.”

2. Determination

The term “component force” of the crime of interference with business means any force that may cause confusion with the free will of a person. As such, violence, intimidation, as well as social, economic, political status, and pressure based on royalty, etc. are also included in the crime. In reality, the victim’s free will is not required to control, but is sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, whether it constitutes force ought to be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons, capacity, mode of duty, type of duty, type of duty, status of the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2584, Oct. 11, 1983; 9Do495, May 28, 199; 209Do5375, Sept. 37, 2009).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant resisted to the victim at the time and time and place indicated in the facts charged in the instant case; (b) the victim stopped the bus on the side, reported to the police, and then suspended the bus operation until the police went into operation; (c) however, the following circumstances revealed by such evidence are merely about 1 minute 30 to 2 minutes; (d) the Defendant was able to take care of the victim before and after the bus down; and (e) the Defendant was able to take care of the victim at the seat following the bus, and (e) there was no other evidence that the Defendant did not take care of the victim’s desire to stop until the victim took care of the victim or the police, and (e) the Defendant did not temporarily take care of the victim’s desire to stop until the victim took care of the victim, and (e) there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant did not have any other victim’s desire to take care of the victim.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this judgment is publicly announced under the main sentence of Article 58

The presiding judge, judge, Dong-gu

Judges Nam-tae et al

Judges Han Young-young