beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who has a dispute over refund due to prior settlement of charges, etc. with the victim C, and in this regard, the defendant filed a complaint against the victim for fraud on June 13, 2014.
From 14:00 on June 27, 2014 to 14:20 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s beauty art business by force by force, such as: (a) from around 14:00 to around 14:20 on the same day, the victim’s “in-house money, management and management, and administration,” “F,” and (b) approximately 20 minutes of disturbance, the victim’s entertainment business operation was obstructed by force, such as: (c) the victim’s visitors who were found in the opening of the above store and enter the said store.
2. Determination
A. “In the crime of interference with business” in the crime of interference with business refers to any force capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will. As such, not only violence threats, but also social and economic status and pressure based on the right and interest, etc. are included therein, and in reality, the victim’s free will is not required to control, but also means the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, whether it constitutes force ought to be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons, form of force, type of duty, type of duty, status of the victim, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.). Furthermore, the crime of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of the result of interference with business, but is adequate when the risk of interference with business arises, and where there is no risk of interference with business, this crime is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5432, Oct. 27, 2005).
According to the records, the defendant is the defendant.