beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On February 6, 2014, around 19:00, the Defendant found in the beauty art room of “E” operated by the victim D in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, and demanded compensation for damages, but the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire to read “a year in which the victim’s head was injured,” and “a year in which the victim’s head was injured,” and “a year in which the victim’s head was injured,” and read false facts, thereby obstructing the victim’s business.
Summary of Evidence
1. Legal statement of witness D;
1. Application of the video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes
1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's act at the time of this case does not constitute a threat of force, etc. in the crime of interference with business.
In the context of the crime of interference with business, the term "defluence" in the crime of interference with business refers to all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing a free will of a person, whether tangible or intangible, and includes not only violence and intimidation, but also social, economic, political status, and pressure by royalty. It does not require actual suppression of the victim's free will by force (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1589, Oct. 12, 1995). In the establishment of the crime of interference with business, it is sufficient if the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence of the result of interference with business, but it is sufficient if the risk of causing the result of interference with business occurs.
Therefore, the exercise of rights should be done in a manner permitted by social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do944, Jun. 28, 1991). Thus, the exercise of rights beyond such limit is not dismissed as illegality.
Supreme Court Decision 200