Whether the act of posting an actual objective fact on the Internet free bulletin board, etc. constitutes a deceptive scheme for the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (negative)

In the crime of interference with business by deceptive means as stipulated in Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, the term “defensive means” means causing mistake, dismissal, or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the offender’s act, and thus, the act of posting the actual objective facts on the Internet free bulletin board, etc. does not constitute “defensive means” as stipulated in Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, even if such act interferes with

Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2005No4541 decided May 25, 2006

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the prosecutor's appeal

In the crime of interference with business by deceptive means as stipulated in Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, the term “defensive means” means causing mistake, dismissal, or land to be used by the other party to achieve the purpose of the offender’s act (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Do221, Jun. 9, 1992; 2003Do504, Mar. 25, 2005; 2003Do504, Mar. 25, 2005). Thus, the act of posting the actual objective facts on the free Internet bulletin board does not constitute “defensive means” as stipulated in the above provision of the Criminal Act, even if the victim’s work is hindered.

The court below found the defendant not guilty of obstruction of business among the facts charged in this case on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant interfered with the business of the certified architect office operated by the victim by deceptive means, since the defendant posted a notice on the Internet next carpets free bulletin board of the Korean supervisor group on the Internet, this article does not constitute a fraudulent scheme, and it does not constitute a "fact". In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of the legal principles

2. As to the defendant's appeal

The defendant did not submit a statement of grounds of appeal within the statutory period and did not contain any statement in the grounds of appeal, and thus the appeal shall be dismissed by decision pursuant to Article 380 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the appeal shall be dismissed by decision en bloc with the prosecutor's

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)