[1] In the crime of interference with business, another person

[2] The case holding that since the president of a local government-invested public corporation exercises the authority to employ a new employee, it constitutes another person's business which is the object of the crime of interference with business in relation to the president himself, who is the subject of the said authority

[3] The case holding that the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means is not applicable where the president of a local government-invested public corporation with the authority to employ a new employee committed an unlawful act such as test manipulation under mutual invitation or understanding

[1] In the crime of interference with business, the object of the act is another person's business, and "other person" refers to a natural person other than an offender, a legal entity, and an unincorporated organization.

[2] The case holding that since the president of a local government-invested public corporation exercises the authority to employ a new employee, it constitutes another person's business which is the object of the crime of interference with business in relation to the president himself, who is the subject of the said authority

[3] The case holding that where the president of a local government-invested public corporation with the authority to employ a new employee did an unlawful act such as a test manipulation under mutual invitation or understanding, it does not cause mistake, mistake, or site for the employment of a new employee to the corporation, it does not constitute the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means

[1] Article 314 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 314 of the Criminal Act, Article 63 of the former Local Public Enterprises Act (amended by Act No. 6665 of March 25, 2002) / [3] Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Do663 delivered on January 15, 1999 (Gong199Sang, 315)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Sung-sung

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004No4053 Decided August 9, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the obstruction of business

A. According to Article 63 of the former Local Public Enterprises Act (amended by Act No. 665 of January 15, 199), Article 13 of the former Local Public Enterprises Act (amended by Act No. 635 of March 25, 2002), the Act provides that employees of the Corporation shall be appointed or dismissed by the president, and Article 7 (1) of the Rules on the Operation and Management of Contract Employees shall have all employment authority for contract employees, even though the Defendant’s exercise of employment authority for new employees under the above provision belongs to the Defendant, who is the president of the contract employees. Thus, the Defendant’s exercise of employment authority for new employees under the above provision is merely the execution of the work of the Corporation as an institution of the instant corporation.

B. Meanwhile, in the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, the term "defensive means" means causing mistake, dismissal, or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the offender's act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3839, Jun. 29, 2007). In light of the facts duly admitted by the court below, the requirement of eligibility to include Nonindicted Party 1, who is the person in charge of the recruitment examination for new staff of the instant corporation, in the person in charge of general administration 6 test, in the person who is a specialized contract, Nonindicted Party 3, who is the person in charge of the above affairs, was the result of the Defendant's improper instruction, and it is not the result of the Defendant's act that did not cause mistake, dismissal, or land to the person in charge of the above affairs, and if both the Defendant and the person in charge of the above examination conducted the above unlawful act under the public invitation or understanding, it cannot be deemed that the above Defendant's new personnel in charge of interference with business or unlawful act.

C. The court below's decision that the above new employee employment service is not the service of the corporation of this case in the crime of interference with business is erroneous, but it is just in its conclusion that the defendant's act does not constitute a deceptive scheme in the crime of interference with business through deceptive means, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of interference with business through deceptive means.

2. As to the occupational embezzlement

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to see that the defendant had an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the intention to obtain unlawful acquisition

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)