CONTENTS
- 1. Interference With Business, the Detailed Circumstances
- - Interference With Business, the Relevant Statutes
- 2. Interference With Business, the Court's Determination
- 3. Interference With Business, Daeryun's Strategy
1. Interference With Business, the Detailed Circumstances
Defendant A, who was charged with interference with business, had previously worked as a probationary instructor at the academy of plaintiff B.
On the ground that A had received unfair treatment at the academy, A posted false statements online about B's academy, such as that "sexual harassment and sexual molestation frequently occurred at company dinners" and that "the academy assaulted and threatened its instructors."
B then filed a criminal complaint against A, and A was charged by summary indictment with violation of the Network Act (defamation (criminal defamation under Korean law, broader than common-law defamation in that even true statements may be punishable)) and interference with business and received a fine of 5 million won.
Afterward, B filed a civil lawsuit seeking damages, claiming that during the approximately eight months in which A's tortious conduct occurred, the academy's revenue decreased by about 220 million won compared with the previous year.
Interference With Business, the Relevant Statutes
🔗Interference with business is the crime of interfering with another person's business by spreading the statements described above or by other force.
Where violent means are employed, interference with business may also give rise to assault, intimidation, and destruction of property, among others, and in the case of spreading false statements, defamation may also be at issue.
Because several offenses may be established in this way, one should properly understand and be mindful of the level of punishment and the applicable sentence.
▣ Article 314 of the Criminal Act (Interference With Business)
(1) A person who interferes with another person's business by spreading false statements or by other deceptive scheme or force shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 15 million won.
(2) The same punishment as in paragraph (1) shall apply to a person who interferes with another person's business by destroying an information processing device such as a computer or special media records such as electronic records, by entering false information or improper commands into an information processing device, or by causing a disruption in information processing by other means.
The requirements for establishing interference with business are the following three.
① Spreading of False Statements
A false statement is one that differs from the actual facts, and interference with business is established only where the defendant knowingly and intentionally spreads it. A mere expression of opinion or a remark arising from a misunderstanding of the facts is not regarded as a false statement.
② Deceptive Scheme
The person must provide false information or use a deceptive method for the purpose of disrupting the other party's business or interfering with the normal performance of that business.
③ Force
This applies where, through intimidation, violence, pressure, or the like, the person prevents the other party from carrying on its business normally.
2. Interference With Business, the Court's Determination
In the lawsuit brought on the charge of interference with business, the court, while recognizing that the false statements posted by defendant A caused a decrease in the revenue of plaintiff B's academy, held that they could not be regarded as the principal cause of the revenue decrease and dismissed the claim for pecuniary damages.
The court stated, "The academy's revenue had been on a continuing downward trend since 2019, and this decrease in revenue may also have been attributable to COVID-19 at the time, so it is insufficient to recognize a causal relationship between the defendant's tortious conduct and the decrease in the revenue of the plaintiff's academy."
The court further held, "There is no evidence to recognize that all of the students who discontinued their courses at the academy during the period of the revenue decrease saw the postings made by the defendant or indirectly learned of them and discontinued their courses because of a negative perception of the plaintiff."
However, the court stated, "It is recognized that B's posting of false statements damaged the academy's reputation and decreased its revenue," and, taking into account the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the content posted by the defendant, and other factors, set the amount of consolation money (solatium) to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff at 10 million won.
3. Interference With Business, Daeryun's Strategy
In this case concerning interference with business, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for pecuniary damages but recognized a portion of the loss arising from the posting of false statements.
If a person posts false or exaggerated statements for the purpose of attracting attention or causing harm to a particular target, this constitutes interference with business, so the person may face not only a criminal complaint but also, as in the case above, a damages lawsuit.
In criminal cases such as interference with business, the initial response is very important. Responding alone and merely denying the charge can instead work to one's disadvantage in the litigation.
If one proves that one's conduct did not directly interfere with the other party's business, a finding of no charge may be possible.
Accordingly, if you are facing charges, we recommend resolving the case with 🔗the assistance of Daeryun Law Firm LLP.
