logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.04.24 2013노5189
업무방해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) was true that the defendant visited the victim's real estate brokerage office several times. However, the defendant visited the victim to return the brokerage commission paid excessively to the victim, and only requested the return of the brokerage commission, and did not take a bath or a failure. The time when the defendant visited the victim was no guest after the completion of his/her duties. Thus, the defendant did not interfere with the victim's business.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant demanded the return of brokerage commission, claiming that the Defendant paid excessive fees by finding in the real estate agent office located in the victim’s business place, around 17:00 on March 4, 2013, and the victim demanded the Defendant to leave the office by explaining that the commission was not paid excessively, but the Defendant refused it and continued to stay in the office, and the Defendant did not have any disturbance. The Defendant reported to the police station and dispatched the police officer, and the Defendant had failed to repeatedly find the victim’s office as described in the facts charged even after it was found.

The office of licensed real estate agents, which are the business places of the victim, does not have a specific business hours, so it cannot be concluded that the time when the defendant visited is after the completion of business as argued by the defendant, and the victim is also an important business content, such as the victim's telephone response or handling of brokerage-related affairs. Therefore, even if the defendant did not have a customer at the time of the defendant's visit according to the defendant's assertion, it is reasonable to deem that the above business operation of the victim was obstructed by the defendant's act. Thus, the facts charged in this case where the defendant's act interfered with the victim's business,

arrow