logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.18 2016노1917
업무방해등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The lower court, among the facts charged in the instant case, sustained injury by the victim as to the injury.

It is difficult to recognize as well as that he/she has suffered bodily injury;

Even though it was caused by the defendant's act

On the ground that it is difficult to conclude it, the judgment of not guilty and guilty only of assault.

Since only the Defendant appealed against the conviction part of the judgment below, and the Prosecutor did not appeal against the acquittal part of the reasoning, the acquittal part was also reversed in accordance with the indivisible principle of appeal, but it had already been exceeded from the object of attack and defense between the parties, so the conclusion of the judgment below is followed with respect to the acquittal part of the reasoning.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On September 22, 2015, with respect to the obstruction of business affairs, the victim, who was dismissed from office as the president of the association at the extraordinary general meeting of the association members and was not authorized to convene a meeting, illegally convened a meeting to force the selection of a reconstruction project against the will of the association members.

The act of the victim is an anti-social act that infringes on the rights of members against the will of the majority of the members, and has no value to protect from the harm caused by the unlawful act of others.

Therefore, the victim's duties are not subject to protection of interference with business affairs.

In addition, despite the defendant's act, the board of representatives and the resolution have been made and the business has not been hindered.

Even if it is not, the defendant's act is a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms.

2) There is no victim of the crime of assault as described in the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

(a) To interfere with the business;

arrow