Criminal Complaint for Interference With Business | Assisting the Client to a Non-Referral Decision Despite an Interference With Business Complaint

🔗Interference with business is a crime committed when a person interferes with another's business. Interfering with another person's business or work may be subject to criminal punishment.

For interference with business to be committed, there must be elements such as ▲an intent to interfere, ▲actual interference with the business, and ▲a disruption to the business caused by the interference.

It is an act of intentionally making a business impossible, and if harm results, interference with business is committed.

Representative types of interference with business appear as indirect conduct such as ▲spreading false facts, ▲interfering with business through misconduct, ▲inducing or threatening employees, and ▲deception, as well as conduct involving force such as ▲assault and ▲intimidation.

In the case of interference with business, the level of punishment varies depending on the circumstances, but the general level of punishment is imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of up to 15 million won.

Let us look at the precedents on interference with business.

The first precedent is a court ruling on deceit and force in interference with business.

While an academy over which A held the actual operating rights was being run in B's name, B carried out a notice of closure without A's consent.

The court determined that B, by unilaterally deciding to close the academy using his own name without prior notice, interfered with A's operation of the academy, and it recognized this as interference with business by force.

The second precedent is a holding on the meaning of interfering with business in interference with business.

The court determined that, where the defendant secretly placed into a document-delivery company's package, which the company had been entrusted by a customer to deliver, a leaflet containing content slandering a particular religion, this interfered with the company's document-delivery business.

The accuser asserts that the part concerning the “work experience at Company A” that the client entered in the career-description section of the relevant new-hire recruitment process is false.

In response, the Daeryun attorney submitted pay slips and other materials as evidence to prove that the client had indeed worked at Company A, rebutting the accuser's assertion.

The accuser is the client's former girlfriend.

In writing the personal statement, the client received only help at the level of proofreading and review.

The accuser asserts that she wrote it on his behalf, citing text messages such as “You passed the document screening thanks to me.”

The Daeryun attorney emphasized that this content merely reflected the fact that the accuser's proofreading and review had been helpful, and that the client had used somewhat exaggerated expressions to praise the accuser, with whom he was in a relationship at the time, and to express his gratitude.