(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.07.03 2014노120 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.07.03 2014노120

업무방해

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that there is no explicit provision prohibiting online voting in the party constitution or party constitution or party constitution of D party, the Defendants did not have intention to engage in deception because there was no awareness as to whether the evacuation voting is prohibited. 2) It is difficult to view that the Defendants’ act was detrimental to the fairness and appropriateness of the competition management of D party.

3) Due to the Defendants’ act, there is no causal relationship because the person in charge of the D party did not fall under a mistake, mistake, etc., due to his insufficient examination and technical limit, there is no causal relationship. 4) Whether the voting right holder directly exercises his/her right to vote is not within the scope of the competition management work of the D party, and thus, it cannot be said that it does not fall under a deceptive scheme.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means of the applicable legal doctrine regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the term “defensive means” means that an actor misleads, misleads, or causes land to be used by the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the act. The establishment of the crime of interference with business does not require that the result of interference with business was actually generated, and it is sufficient to cause the risk of interference with business, and the crime of interference with business is established even in cases where the propriety or fairness of business is hindered, not by itself, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010). The intent of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily require the intention of interference with business or planned interference with business, but is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interference with another person’s business due to his/her own act, and its perception or prediction is not only conclusive but also definite (see,

참조판례

-대법원 2010. 3. 25. 선고 2009도8506 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2014.07.03 2014노129

-광주지방법원 2015.04.14 2014노1866

-수원지방법원 2015.12.04 2014노2180 (1)

-광주지방법원 2015.05.28 2014노1867

-인천지방법원 2014.08.29 2014노1084