Whether exercising voting rights as a shareholder at a general meeting of shareholders constitutes "business subject to protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act (negative)

The term "business" subject to protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Code refers to a business or business continuously engaged in according to an occupation or other social status, and the exercise of voting rights by a general meeting of shareholders is limited to the exercise of rights as a holder of stocks, and it does not constitute a "business or business continuously engaged in according to an occupation or other social status."

Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm International Law Firm, Attorneys Shin Jae-soo et al.

Busan District Court Decision 2003No3951 delivered on February 11, 2004

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

1. In full view of the evidence in its reasoning, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant, a representative director of the non-indicted corporation, conspired with 130 employees of the above company, and held on March 30, 2001 at the general meeting of shareholders of the above company that held on March 30, 201, prevents personal shareholders from exercising their right to speak and voting rights. Since exercising the right to speak or voting rights as a shareholder continues to hold shares in accordance with the social status of the shareholder, the court below maintained the judgment of the first instance court which was punished by the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act.

2. However, "business" subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to business or business continuously engaged in according to the occupation and other social status (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1589 delivered on October 12, 1995, etc.). The exercise of voting rights by shareholders as shareholders is merely a exercise of rights as holders of stocks, but it does not constitute "business or business continuously engaged in according to the occupation or other social status." Thus, even if the defendant committed an act as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, it cannot be deemed that the defendant interfered with the business of shareholders, regardless of whether the defendant interfered with the exercise of rights as shareholders.

In addition, the court below acknowledged that the defendant conspireds with the above acts of employees of the above company, citing the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, and suggested each of the above acts in the court of first instance and the prosecutor's office's office as evidence consistent with it, such as the defendant's progress, participation in the process, gambling, and leaps, and so on. However, the defendant denies the fact of a closed-end public offering, and the defendant thought that the defendant's statements in the progress and the late-end interference were likely to have avoided the employees of the above company in advance by considering that the employees of the above company did not interfere with the acts of the above company, and therefore, it is too difficult to see that the defendant's statements in Park Young-young and leaps who are police officers dispatched to the general meeting site and the employees of the above company did not interfere with the acts of the above company, and that the defendant did not voluntarily participate in the meeting of the above company's management director, which is a management director of the above company, and that the defendant's statements in the management right of the above company should not interfere with the above individual's voting.

Nevertheless, the court below concluded that the exercise of shareholder's rights constitutes business as referred to in the crime of interference with business, and found the defendant guilty of interference with business by deeming that the defendant had proved that he conspired to act by the employees of the above company. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of interference with business or by violating the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)