All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2021Do16482 Decided March 16, 2023 【Defamation; Interference with Business; Assaults】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Meaning of and standard of determining “business” as referred to in the interference with business Even if substantial or procedural defects exist in the process of commencing or performing any business, if such defects do not reach an antisocial extent, whether such business corresponds to any business as referred to in the interference with business (affirmative) [2] Whether an act of a person other than medical personnel or medical corporation establishing and operating a medical institution is included in any business as referred to in the interference with business (negative) Standard of determining whether the medical treatment of medical personnel, who was hired by a medical institution established by a disqualified person, corresponds to any business as referred to in the interference with business [3] In a case where at Hospital C, which Party B, a person other than medical personnel, established and has operated under the name of Party A, a medical personnel, the criminal defendant was indicted on a charge of interfering with the medical treatment of Party A by the threat of force in the manner of uttering loudly and harshly on 11 occasions or preventing Party A who had a medical appointment with patients from performing medical treatment, the case holding that even though the lower court should have determined whether the criminal defendant’s act constitutes the interference with business by thoroughly examining whether the criminal defendant interfered with medical treatment of Party A as well as the general operation of Hospital C, the lower court readily concluded that Party A’s medical treatment is also included in the business of operating Hospital C and thus cannot be seen as any business worth protecting separately on the premise that the business of operating Hospital C does not correspond to any business that should be protected under the Criminal Act stipulating the interference with business, and, in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine | |
