Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Expression on public affairs as force in the crime of obstruction of business
Supreme Court, Apr. 15, 2025, 2024Do16921 (judgment)
Case name: 업무방해
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where defendants played instruments on an armoured vehicle, chanted slogans and unfurled a banner on a tank at a defence industry exhibition, did their conduct amount to the exercise of 'force' within the meaning of Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, judged with the constitutional protection of freedom of expression?
Holding
No. Force means any force, tangible or intangible, capable of suppressing or confusing a person's free will; the victim's will need not in fact have been suppressed, but the conduct must reach a degree sufficient to suppress it, judged objectively on the circumstances of the offence and not determined by the victim's will. For expression on a matter of public interest, the importance and scope of freedom of expression and the principles of the subsidiarity and ultima ratio of punishment must be weighed as well, and on that test it was hard to say that the defendants' conduct was force, or that their acts actually obstructed the exhibition work or created a risk of obstruction.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 이러한 표현행위가 형법 제314조 제1항의 업무방해죄에서 말하는 위력의 행사에 해당하는지는 표현의 자유의 중요성과 보호범위 및 한계, 형벌의 보충성과 최후수단성의 원칙도 함께 음미하여 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, whether such expressive conduct constitutes an exercise of force as referred to in the crime of obstruction of business under Article 314, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Act must be determined after likewise giving due consideration to the importance, scope of protection, and limits of the freedom of expression, and to the principles of subsidiarity and ultima ratio of punishment.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
그러한 위력에 해당하는지는 범행의 일시·장소, 범행의 동기, 목적, 인원수, 세력의 태양, 업무의 종류, 피해자의 지위 등 여러 사정을 고려하여 객관적으로 판단하여야 하고, 피해자 등의 의사에 의해 결정되는 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
Whether the conduct constitutes such force must be determined objectively in consideration of various circumstances such as the time and place of the offense, the motive and purpose of the offense, the number of persons involved, the mode of the force, the type of work, and the status of the victim, and is not determined by the will of the victim or others.
Factors
- 범행의 일시·장소, 범행의 동기, 목적, 인원수, 세력의 태양, 업무의 종류, 피해자의 지위 등 여러 사정을 고려하여 객관적으로 판단하여야 하고
- 범인의 위세, 사람 수, 주위의 상황 등에 비추어 피해자의 자유의사를 제압하기 족한 정도가 되어야 한다
- 공적 관심사에 대한 표현의 자유 제한은 사적 영역에 속하는 사항의 경우보다 더욱 신중하게 이루어져야 한다
- 형벌의 보충성과 최후수단성의 원칙도 함께 음미하여 판단하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• an objective determination must be made in consideration of various circumstances such as the time and place of the offense, the motive and purpose of the offense, the number of persons involved, the mode of the force, the type of work, and the status of the victim, and
• in light of the offender's display of force, the number of persons, and the surrounding circumstances, the degree must be sufficient to overwhelm the victim's free will
• restrictions on the freedom of expression concerning matters of public concern must be imposed even more prudently than in the case of matters falling within the private sphere
• due consideration must likewise be given to the principles of subsidiarity and ultima ratio of punishment
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2016. 10. 27. 선고 2016도10956 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2016Do10956 decided October 27, 2016
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2016. 10. 27. 선고 2016도10956 판결, 대법원 2022. 9. 7. 선고 2021도9055 판결(공2022하, 2134) / [2] 대법원 2021. 3. 25. 선고 2016도14995 판결(공2021상, 935)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How long, how loud and how many people must a protest at an exhibition hall involve before it reaches the degree sufficient to suppress the organiser's free will?
The judgment the Uijeongbu District Court delivers on remand will show how the several circumstances are weighed on these facts, and should be read with this entry. Any amendment to Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act or a later decision applying the constitutional balancing differently would also require a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Uijeongbu District Court, in its judgment of 10 October 2024 (2023No3197), convicted the defendants. It held that their conduct was enough to suppress the victim's free will concerning the running of the exhibition and so was force within the crime of obstruction of business, and that it was also hard to see their conduct as a justified act not contrary to social norms.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misapprehended the law on force in the crime of obstruction of business and that the error affected the judgment. On the record, the defendants bought paid admission tickets and entered the venue by ordinary means, two of them played two string instruments without a loudspeaker or amplifier at one of 1,350 booths for under five minutes, three chanted slogans with the unaided voice only, and they ended the expression voluntarily. The organising committee of the victim had the sponsorship of government agencies, and, since weapons production and export and other national defence industry matters have public and social significance, the subject matter was one of public interest, so the defendants had a right to scrutiny and criticism; weighed with the character of the event, the manner of the acts, the means of expression, the noise and the effect on the exhibition, it was hard to sustain the finding that the defendants had exercised force. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court, by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- Expression whose subject is not a matter of public interest, such as policy decisions or the performance of duties of a government or state agency, but belongs to the private sphere.
- Conduct that reaches a degree sufficient to suppress the victim's free will on the circumstances of the offence, or that in fact obstructs the work or creates a risk of obstruction.
- Conduct beyond the expression itself, such as blocking security staff and causing visitors to leave their seats, where the record shows clear evidence of it.
Record verification notes
Set the acts against the whole setting: which of the 1,350 booths, how many people, how long, what means of amplification, and what noise was already present in a hall where some 65,000 visitors moved about freely. Then ask whether the subject of the expression is a matter of public interest, since that changes how carefully it must be protected, and whether the exhibition work was actually obstructed or placed at risk, which the Court treated as a separate question from the existence of force.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 업무방해죄에서 ‘위력’의 의미 및 위력에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 [2] 헌법상 표현의 자유의 보장과 한계 및 정부 또는 국가기관의 정책결정이나 업무수행과 관련된 사항 등 공적 관심사에 대한 표현행위가 형법 제314조 제1항의 업무방해죄에서 말하는 위력의 행사에 해당하는지 판단할 때 고려할 사항
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of 'force' in the crime of obstruction of business and the criteria for determining whether force is present [2] Matters to be considered when determining whether expressive conduct concerning matters of public concern, such as the policy decisions or performance of work by the Government or state agencies, constitutes an exercise of force as referred to in the crime of obstruction of business under Article 314, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Act, in light of the guarantee and limits of the freedom of expression under the Constitution
Summary of the holding
[1] 업무방해죄의 ‘위력’이란 사람의 자유의사를 제압·혼란하게 할 만한 일체의 세력으로 유형적이든 무형적이든 묻지 아니한다. 또한 위력이 행사되었다고 하기 위해 현실적으로 피해자의 자유의사가 제압되어야만 하는 것은 아니지만, 범인의 위세, 사람 수, 주위의 상황 등에 비추어 피해자의 자유의사를 제압하기 족한 정도가 되어야 한다. 그러한 위력에 해당하는지는 범행의 일시·장소, 범행의 동기, 목적, 인원수, 세력의 태양, 업무의 종류, 피해자의 지위 등 여러 사정을 고려하여 객관적으로 판단하여야 하고, 피해자 등의 의사에 의해 결정되는 것은 아니다. [2] 민주주의 국가에서는 여론의 자유로운 형성과 전달을 통하여 의견을 집약하면서 민주적 정치질서를 생성·유지시켜 나가야 한다. 그러므로 표현의 자유는 중요한 헌법상 권리로서 충실하게 보장되어야 한다. 다만 표현의 자유도 다른 법익과의 관계에서 헌법상 한계가 있을 수밖에 없다. 따라서 표현의 자유 보장의 폭과 방법은 다른 법익과의 면밀한 비교와 형량을 통하여 정해야 한다. 한편 정부 또는 국가기관의 정책결정이나 업무수행과 관련된 사항 등 공적 관심사는 국민의 감시와 비판의 대상이 되어야 한다. 이러한 감시와 비판은 표현의 자유가 충분히 보장될 때 제대로 이루어질 수 있다. 그러므로 공적 관심사에 대한 표현의 자유 제한은 사적 영역에 속하는 사항의 경우보다 더욱 신중하게 이루어져야 한다. 특히 이러한 표현행위를 형사적으로 처벌하는 것은 공적 관심사에 대한 민주적 담론의 위축으로 이어질 수도 있다. 따라서 이러한 표현행위가 형법 제314조 제1항의 업무방해죄에서 말하는 위력의 행사에 해당하는지는 표현의 자유의 중요성과 보호범위 및 한계, 형벌의 보충성과 최후수단성의 원칙도 함께 음미하여 판단하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제314조 제1항 [2] 헌법 제21조, 형법 제314조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger