Though the article 314(Interference with Business) of Korean Criminal Code requires the result of interference with the business of another in constitution of that crime, those who give rise to a danger of the result are being judged guilty of it in judicial trials. To prohibit the excessive application overpunishment by the judiciary authorities, this article suggests some points. First, the means of interference with Business, that is fraudulent means or the threat of force, are so vague that it might infringe on the liberty of speech and press, and of meeting and assembly. So they should be interpreted within a narrow boundary or restricted to similar degree to violence or intimidation. Second, the article 314 should be only applied to the cases in which the result of interference with the business of another are practically occurred. Because the attempt to commit that crime shall not be punished, the interference with the business could not be punished for that crime so long as it put an end to causing that result.

[대상판결] 대법원 2008. 6. 26. 선고 2008도2537 판결
  사실관계
  사건의 경과
  대법원 판결요지
  ［참조판결 1] 대법원 2009. 1. 30. 선고 2008도6950 판결 (공 2009, 279)
  [참조판결 2] 대법원 1992. 6. 9. 선고 91도2221 판결
 〔연구〕
  I. 머 리 말
  II. 침해범 위험범의 구분과 업무방해죄의 법적 성격
  III. 원심판결 및 대법원판결에 대한 비판
  [참고문헌]
  [Abstract]

• 김태명(전북대학교 법학전문대학원 교수, 법학박사) | Kim, Tae Myeong