logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2019.10.22 2019고정204
문서은닉등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant operates a mutual general restaurant called D cafeteria in Changwon-si, Masan-si B building C, and the victim E works as the chairperson of the occupant steering committee in the management office of B building from March 2018 as the owner of an officetel in the same building F.

On May 1, 2019, the Defendant removed four copies of the management rules, such as the amendment of the management rules and the additional supplementary proposal, posted in order to inform occupants of the need to modify the management rules in the above B building. At the same time, the Defendant concealed the notice and interfered with the victim’s public announcement by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A copy of the amendment, addition, or supplement of the management rules;

1. The defendant asserts that there is no authority to post a notice notice as there is no authority to represent the victim with respect to the management of the building of this case. However, the "business" subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to the business or business which is engaged in occupation or continuously, and is worth protecting the victim from infringement by other person's illegal acts. Since the contract or administrative act which is the basis of the business is not necessarily lawful, whether the business is legally worthy of protection is determined depending on whether the business is actually a peaceful and is the basis of social activities. Even if there is a substantive or procedural defect in the process of commencement or performance of the business, the degree of such defect does not reach anti-sociality, it shall be subject to protection of the crime of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do382, Mar. 9, 2006).

arrow