【Holding】
[1] Meaning of "force" in the crime of interference with business and criteria for determining whether conduct constitutes force / Whether the establishment of the crime of interference with business requires the actual occurrence of a result of interference with business (negative)
[2] In a case where the defendant was indicted on the charge of interfering with the daycare center operation business of A, the director of a daycare center, by taking advantage of the fact that the defendant held the report certificate (report confirmation certificate) of the children's commuter bus operated by A for the commuting of infants and young children, voluntarily returning it to the competent authority in the course of a dispute with A, and thereby preventing the vehicle from being operated, the Court held that the defendant's conduct constituted the exercise of "force" in the crime of interference with business, being a force sufficient to overpower the free will of A, who needed to operate the children's commuter bus to run the daycare center, and that the risk of interference with A's daycare center operation business had already arisen thereby, and thus upheld the lower court's judgment to the same effect
【Summary of Decision】
[1] "Force" in the crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act means any power capable of overpowering or confusing a person's free will, whether tangible or intangible, and includes not only violence and intimidation but also pressure by social, economic, or political status and influence. Force need not actually overpower the victim's free will, but it must be a power sufficient to overpower the victim's free will, and whether conduct constitutes such force should be determined objectively by considering various circumstances, such as the date, time, and place of the crime, the motive and purpose of the crime, the number of persons, the mode of the force, the type of business, and the status of the victim. The establishment of the crime of interference with business does not require that a result of interference with business actually occur; it suffices that a risk of bringing about a result of interference with business has arisen.
[2] In a case where the defendant was indicted on the charge of interfering with the daycare center operation business of A, the director of a daycare center, by taking advantage of the fact that the defendant held the report certificate (hereinafter "report confirmation certificate") of the children's commuter bus operated by A for the commuting of infants and young children, voluntarily returning it to the competent authority in the course of a dispute with A, and thereby preventing the vehicle from being operated, the Court held as follows: ① where the director of a daycare center operates a vehicle for the commuting of infants and young children, the director must satisfy certain requirements for use as a children's commuter bus and report it in advance to the chief of the competent police station, must obtain the report confirmation certificate and keep it at all times inside the children's commuter bus, and in case of violation, may be subject to an administrative fine or may be reported or accused to the relevant administrative agency or investigative agency (Articles 33-2 and 42-2(1)4 of the Infant Care Act, and Articles 52 and 160(1)7 and 8 and (2)4 of the Road Traffic Act); ② the defendant, taking advantage of his position, etc., in that a 99% share of the vehicle that A was using as a children's commuter bus was registered in the name of the defendant's son, voluntarily returned the children's commuter bus report confirmation certificate to the competent police station and thereby made it impossible for A to continue using the vehicle as a children's commuter bus; accordingly, such conduct of the defendant constitutes the exercise of "force" in the crime of interference with business, being a force sufficient to overpower the free will of A, who needed to operate the children's commuter bus to run the daycare center; and ③ as long as the defendant's conduct caused an obstacle to A's operation of the children's commuter bus, the risk of interference with A's daycare center operation business had already arisen, and therefore, even if A purchased a new vehicle the day after the incident, completed the children's commuter bus report procedure, and resumed operating the children's commuter bus, the defendant's exercise of force and the resulting occurrence of the risk of interference with business cannot be denied; for these reasons, the Court upheld the lower court's judgment that, to the same effect, held that the defendant's conduct constituted the crime of interference with business by force.
【Referenced Statutes】
[1] Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act [2] Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 33-2 and 42-2(1)4 of the Infant Care Act; Articles 52 and 160(1)7 and 8 and (2)4 of the Road Traffic Act
【Referenced Precedents】
[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3231, March 29, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1049)
Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5004, March 25, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 698)
Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, September 10, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1722)
Supreme Court Decision 2016Do3986, October 28, 2021
(Source: Supreme Court Decision 2026Do2207, August 13, 2026 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Supreme Court of Korea)
2026. 10. 26. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin
Call
KakaoTalk
E-mail