Recognition of Obstruction of Business

Legal principles and case-law standards for determining whether, under Article 314 of the Criminal Act, the crime of obstruction of business is established through obstructive conduct such as 'force'

Recognition of Obstruction of Business

Overview

Recognition of obstruction of business refers to the legal process of determining whether the crime of obstruction of business under Article 314 of the Criminal Act is established—that is, whether another person's continuously pursued business was actually obstructed by force, dissemination of false facts, mechanical means, or similar. The key issue is whether, beyond mere inconvenience or displeasure, the other party's free decision-making was impaired and normal performance of the business was hindered; the nature of the business, the means of obstruction, the degree of force, and the possibility of resulting harm are comprehensively examined. Recently, the scope of recognition has been expanding to cover new types of obstructive conduct such as online review bombing, deepfake false information, and paralysis of information processing devices.

Key Details

1. Legal Basis

Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act provides that 'a person who obstructs another person's business by spreading false facts or by machines or other means shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 15 million won.' Paragraph 2 imposes the same punishment where a person obstructs business by causing a disorder in information processing through destroying a computer or other information processing device, or special media records such as electronic records, or by inputting false information or unlawful commands. Obstruction of business is both a property crime and a crime protecting social legal interests; it is not a crime requiring a complaint or a crime not punishable against the victim's express wish, so punishment is possible even without the victim's complaint.

2. Elements of the Offense

Subject and Object — The subject is a natural person, and the object is the 'business' of another. One's own business cannot be the object, and the business of a corporation or organization is also protected.

Concept of Business — Means affairs or business continuously engaged in under an occupation or a position in social life. Continuity and repetitiveness are required; a one-time act, in principle, does not constitute business. It need not necessarily be lawful and valid, but illegal business lacking protective value is excluded from protection.

Types of Obstructive Conduct — Divided into ① dissemination of false facts, ② exercise of force, ③ machines or other means, and ④ occurrence of disorder in information processing devices. In practice, the most frequently contested is 'force'.

Meaning of Force — Means any power that exerts pressure on a person's will or body and obstructs free decision-making. It includes not only physical force but also threats, defamatory words or conduct, pressure using social, economic, or political status, and power combined by many persons. It is not necessarily required that the victim actually felt fear; it is sufficient if there is a risk of resulting obstruction of business.

Degree of Obstruction — It is sufficient to cause hindrance to the extent that performance of the business itself becomes difficult, and it is not required that the business be completely stopped or that concrete property damage occur.

3. Representative Scenarios Where Recognition Is Contested

Assemblies and Demonstrations: Occupying construction sites, long-term demonstrations in front of a company's main gate, loud noise from loudspeakers, etc., may be assessed as exercise of force. However, because this conflicts with the constitutional freedom of assembly, the purpose, method, time, place, and scale are comprehensively weighed.
Labor Disputes/Industrial Actions: Lawful industrial actions negate illegality, but if combined with violence, occupation, destruction of production facilities, etc., the possibility of recognizing obstruction of business is high.
Workplace Bullying: If group ostracism, repeated insults, exclusion from work, etc., continue and make it difficult for the victim to perform their duties, obstruction of business by force may be recognized.
Online Review/Rating Bombing: Acts by competitors or organized groups of massively posting false malicious reviews raise issues of dissemination of false facts or exercise of force.
Interference with Shareholders' Meetings/Bidding: Acts of artificially nullifying a quorum for resolutions or obstructing bidding work through collusion are also subject.

4. Justification and Limits

If justifiable act (Article 20 of the Criminal Act), lawful industrial action, freedom of speech, exercise of consumer rights, etc., are recognized, illegality is negated. Case law strictly examines whether conduct at the boundary between freedom of expression and obstruction of business is 'an act that does not violate social norms,' using the adequacy of means, minimality of harm, and balance of legal interests as factors.

Recent Trends

In 2024–2025, the scope of recognition of obstruction of business is rapidly expanding into the digital domain. First, in the platform economy, organized malicious review and rating bombing has emerged as a typical technique that damages business trust, and application of the dissemination-of-false-facts type is increasing. Second, as cases emerge in which false images or voices generated by AI (deepfakes) are disseminated to paralyze the business of a specific company or professional, the criteria for determining 'false facts' are being reexamined. Third, acts that cause disorder in information processing devices through ransomware, DDoS, server hacking, etc., have become a representative application of Article 314(2) of the Criminal Act, and the relationship of concurrence with cybercrime is becoming an issue. Fourth, since the enforcement of the Workplace Bullying Prohibition Act, attempts to charge collective ostracism and exclusion from work as obstruction of business have increased, but proof of intent and the nature of force remains the key issue. Fifth, in conjunction with discussions on amending the Trade Union Act, case law continues to accumulate over the boundary between lawful industrial action and obstruction of business. In practice, securing digital evidence, analyzing access records and logs, and calculating the scale of damage are emerging as key factors determining recognition.