beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Regarding the facts-misunderstanding or misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged No. 2 of the instant case, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act at the time of the instant case constituted a threat of force as provided by the Act on the Obstruction of Duties and the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part of the lower judgment, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, stating in detail the judgment on
2) The “power of force” of the crime of interference with the relevant legal doctrine refers to any force that may cause suppression and confusion of a person’s free will. As such, not only violence and intimidation, but also social, economic, political 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 be controlled. However, it refers to a force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, the determination of whether the act of force constitutes force ought to be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and time and place of the crime, motive and purpose of the crime, number of persons to commit the crime, form of force, type of duty, type of duty, status of the victim, etc.
In addition, the power of interference with business affairs does not necessarily mean that a person engaged in business directly terminates a provisional termination does not necessarily mean that a person engaged in business is a force, and an act that makes a certain physical condition sufficient to suppress a person’s free will and makes it impossible or considerably difficult for a person to act freely (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009, etc.).