The Criminal Offense of ‘Obstruction of Business’ in Korea: A Detailed Explanation
The Big Picture
1. Overview and Legislative Purpose
The offense of obstruction of business is an offense provided in Article 314 of the Criminal Act, punishing the act of obstructing another’s business by spreading false facts, by deception, or by coercive force (Criminal Act, Article 314(1)). The statutory penalty is up to 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 15 million.
The reason foreigners find this offense unfamiliar is that, while many countries treat acts of obstructing business only as a civil tort rather than a criminal offense, Korea provides for it as an independent criminal offense. The protected legal interest of this offense lies in protecting a person’s social and economic activity through business—that is, the “freedom of business.”
2. Analysis of the Elements of the Offense
A. The meaning of the protected “business”
The “business” referred to in the offense of obstruction of business means an occupation, or affairs or an enterprise continuously engaged in (Supreme Court, Mar. 28, 1989, 89do110). Concretely, it means affairs or an enterprise continuously engaged in on the basis of one’s occupation or other social-life status, and includes not only economic activity but broadly all social activity that a person continuously carries out in his social-life status (Supreme Court, Nov. 19, 2009, 2009do4166, en banc).
The following limits, however, apply.
| Category | Content |
|---|---|
| Protected | Continuous affairs or enterprise on the basis of occupational or social-life status |
| Not protected | Affairs carried out as part of mere personal everyday life, hard to regard as based on occupational or social-life status |
| Not protected | Official duties performed by a public official in the course of duty (separately regulated as the offense of obstruction of official duties) |
| Not protected | Where the affairs or activity themselves are so grave in their degree of unlawfulness as to bear an antisocial character that can by no means be tolerated in social life |
In particular, official duties are not included in the “business” protected by the offense of obstruction of business. The reason the Criminal Act provides for the offense of obstruction of official duties separately from the offense of obstruction of business is the purport to punish, as to official duties, only where the execution is obstructed by the method of assault, intimidation, or deception (Supreme Court, Nov. 19, 2009, 2009do4166, en banc).
B. The modes of conduct: deception or coercive force
The modes of conduct of the offense of obstruction of business are three: (1) spreading false facts, (2) deception, and (3) coercive force (Criminal Act, Article 314(1), Article 313).
1) Deception
Deception means that the actor, to achieve the purpose of the act, causes the other party a misperception, mistake, or ignorance and exploits it (Supreme Court, Mar. 11, 2021, 2016do14415).
2) Coercive force
Coercive force means any power capable of suppressing or confusing a person’s free will, whether tangible or intangible, and includes not only assault and intimidation but also pressure by social, economic, or political status and power (Incheon District Court, Bucheon Branch, Sept. 12, 2024, 2024gojeong118). The coercive force need not be applied directly to the person engaged in the business, nor must the victim’s free will actually be suppressed.
That said, whether something constitutes coercive force must be judged objectively, considering all the circumstances—the time and place of the offense, the motive and purpose of the offense, the number of persons, the mode of the power, the type of business, the victim’s status, and the like—and caution must be exercised in applying the offense of obstruction of business to a trivial quarrel between neighbors (Supreme Court, Oct. 27, 2016, 2016do10956).
C. The meaning of obstruction, and the time of completion
To “obstruct” business includes not only obstructing the execution of the business itself but also broadly impeding the management of the business. The offense of obstruction of business is a risk offense; it does not require that the result of obstruction actually arise, but is satisfied if the risk of bringing about the result of obstruction arises. It is also established where it is not the performance of the business itself but the propriety or fairness of the business that is obstructed (Supreme Court, Mar. 11, 2021, 2016do14415; Seoul Central District Court, Aug. 22, 2024, 2023no1502).
D. The subjective element (intent)
The intent of the offense of obstruction of business need not necessarily be a purpose of obstructing business or a deliberate intention; it is satisfied by perceiving or foreseeing that there is a possibility or risk of giving rise to the result that another’s business will be obstructed by one’s act, and conditional intent is also recognized (Seoul High Court, July 17, 2014, 2014no211, 779 (consolidated)).
3. Relationship with Other Offenses
A. Relationship with the offense of assault
The offense of obstruction of business and the offense of assault differ in their elements and protected legal interests, and the establishment of obstruction of business does not generally and typically accompany an act of assault. Accordingly, even where an act of assault was a means of the offense of obstruction of business, the act of assault cannot be regarded as a so-called “non-punishable accompanying act” absorbed into the offense of obstruction of business (Supreme Court, Oct. 11, 2012, 2012do1895).
That said, where there are no circumstances of obstructing business by a method other than assault, it should be regarded as a case in which one act satisfies the elements of both the offense of assault and the offense of obstruction of business, standing in an ideal-concurrence relationship (Seoul Central District Court, Sept. 18, 2017, 2017no2609).
B. Relationship with the offense of obstruction of official duties
As explained above, for the act of obstructing official duties performed by a public official in the course of duty, the offense of obstruction of business cannot be charged; the offense of obstruction of official duties (Criminal Act, Article 136) applies (Supreme Court, Nov. 19, 2009, 2009do4166, en banc).
C. Relationship with industrial action (a strike)
A strike as an industrial action does not always constitute the offense of obstruction of business. Only where, in light of the surrounding circumstances and course, it is carried out abruptly at a time the employer could not foresee, bringing about serious disruption or enormous loss to the employer’s business operation and so on, so that the employer’s free will regarding the continuation of business can be assessed as capable of being suppressed or confused, does it constitute coercive force and establish the offense (Supreme Court, Oct. 27, 2011, 2009do3390).
Moreover, because workers’ right to collective action is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, even where an industrial action formally satisfies the elements of the offense of obstruction of business, where it is an appropriate means of asserting workers’ legitimate interests, unlawfulness is excluded as a justifiable act (Supreme Court, Nov. 8, 1991, 91do326).
4. Comparison with Civil Resolution — the Question of the Propriety of Criminal Punishment
A. Difference from civil obstruction of business
Unlike the criminal offense of obstruction of business, civil obstruction of business does not require the spreading of false facts, deception, or coercive force as elements. Accordingly, even without exercising coercive force such as assault or intimidation, if there was an act obstructing business and damage arose therefrom, liability for damages under Article 750 of the Civil Act may be recognized (Supreme Court, July 14, 1981, 81da414; Daegu District Court, May 2, 2024, 2023na315863).
That said, for an act of obstruction of business to be a tort subject to damages in a civil case, damage must actually have arisen to the victim as a result of the obstruction, and the burden of proving the occurrence of damage and the causal connection lies with the victim (Chuncheon District Court, Sept. 19, 2023, 2021gadan36161; Seoul Northern District Court, Aug. 13, 2024, 2023gadan158311).
| Category | Criminal (offense of obstruction of business) | Civil (tort) |
|---|---|---|
| Mode-of-conduct requirement | Deception, coercive force, or spreading false facts required | Not required |
| Result requirement | Arising of risk suffices (risk offense) | Actual damage must arise |
| Burden of proof | The prosecutor | The victim (plaintiff) |
| Effect | Criminal punishment (imprisonment / fine) | Damages |
B. Examination of whether civil resolution alone suffices
As foreigners wonder, there is discussion of whether it would not be more appropriate to resolve obstruction of business only civilly. The following perspectives can be considered.
The argument for maintaining criminal punishment: An act of obstruction of business infringes, beyond the victim’s individual pecuniary damage, the freedom of social and economic activity itself, and civil damages alone may lack deterrence. Criminal sanction is effective in particular for repeated or organized obstruction of business.
The argument for restricting criminal punishment: The concept of “coercive force,” an element of the offense, is broad, with the risk of being abused as a means of suppressing constitutional fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and the right to collective action. Indeed, some lower-court judgments have held to the effect that caution must be exercised in applying the offense to acts bearing the character of exercising the political freedom of expression (Jeju District Court, Oct. 17, 2018, 2014godan188; Jeju District Court, Jan. 25, 2019, 2012godan1348).
There is also a precedent that mere non-performance of an obligation does not constitute the “coercive force” of the offense of obstruction of business under the Criminal Act, and that this is a matter belonging to the domain of private autonomy between contracting parties, to be resolved by civil liability (Busan District Court, Dongbu Branch, Feb. 17, 2014, 2013gojeong201).
5. Recent Key Judgments
A. Supreme Court, Sept. 11, 2025, 2022do1665 (obstruction of business, property damage) — reversed and remanded. The court held that a one-off, temporary act of installing a banner or the like to make known a fact or opinion is, as part of mere expression of intent hard to regard as based on occupational or social-life status, not the “business” protected by the offense of obstruction of business. That said, it held that if it is carried out as part of the inherent performance of business that has continuity, or in a relationship inseparably close to the inherent performance of business, it may constitute the protected “business”; and it reversed and remanded on the ground of the lower court’s misapprehension of the legal principle.
B. Seoul Central District Court, July 25, 2024, 2024godan2956 (6 months’ imprisonment). While drinking at a restaurant, the defendant, without any reason, loudly cursed at and picked quarrels with other customers, and when the victim (the restaurant operator) restrained him, caused a disturbance—wrapping his arm around the victim’s neck and dragging him—thereby obstructing the restaurant-operation business by coercive force. An actual sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment was imposed on the ground that the defendant reoffended while in a suspended-execution period for an offense of the same kind.
C. Uijeongbu District Court, Namyangju Branch, May 22, 2024, 2023godan1170 (1 year 6 months’ imprisonment). The defendant cursed for about 30 minutes at a restaurant, lunged at another customer, struck down the cutlery holder, and picked up a table, causing a disturbance that prevented other customers from entering, thereby obstructing the restaurant-operation business. An actual sentence of 1 year 6 months’ imprisonment was imposed on the ground that it was an offense during a recidivism period.
D. Seoul Central District Court, June 26, 2024, 2023no3260 (appeal dismissed — acquittal maintained). As to the charged facts that a homemaker had to drive a vehicle to pick up her child and the defendant obstructed this, the court judged that the driving was no more than affairs carried out as part of mere personal everyday life, hard to regard as based on occupational or social-life status, and so did not constitute the “business” protected by the offense; it maintained the acquittal.
E. Daegu District Court, May 2, 2024, 2023na315863 (civil — appeal dismissed). In a case in which dump-truck drivers collectively refused to report for work without authorization, the court—noting that civil obstruction of business does not require coercive force—found it insufficient to recognize the defendants’ collective refusal to provide labor as a tort under the Civil Act, and that even if it were a tort, it was insufficient to recognize that the damage the plaintiff asserted had arisen; it dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.
6. Summary
The offense of obstruction of business is a distinctive offense of Korean criminal law, and its broad scope of application can feel unfamiliar to foreigners. One should note that criminal punishment is possible in parallel with civil resolution; that mere non-performance of an obligation, everyday acts, obstruction of official duties, and the like are not subject to the offense; and that recent precedent shows a trend of interpreting the concept of “business” and the scope of “coercive force” increasingly strictly.
The Trend of Restrictively Interpreting “Coercive Force” in the Offense of Obstruction of Business
1. Reaffirming the Basic Legal Principle of Coercive Force
In the offense of obstruction of business, “coercive force” means any power capable of suppressing or confusing a person’s free will, whether tangible or intangible, and includes not only assault and intimidation but also pressure by social, economic, or political status and power. That said, it must reach at least a degree of power that can be assessed as sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will; where it does not reach that, it does not constitute coercive force (Supreme Court, Mar. 30, 2023, 2019do7446; Supreme Court, Oct. 28, 2021, 2016do3986).
Whether something constitutes coercive force must be judged objectively, considering all the circumstances—the time and place of the offense, the motive and purpose, the number of persons, the mode of the power, the type of business, the victim’s status, and the like (Supreme Court, Oct. 27, 2016, 2016do10956).
2. Analysis by Type of Act Excluded from Coercive Force
A. Acts within the sphere of freedom of expression
1) Protest and expression against an exhibition — Supreme Court, 2024do16921 (reversed and remanded)
This judgment is the most important recent Supreme Court judgment on the relationship between an act of expression and the offense of obstruction of business.
The Supreme Court held as follows.
The “coercive force” of the offense of obstruction of business means any power capable of suppressing or confusing a person’s free will, whether tangible or intangible. … Whether such an act of expression constitutes the exercise of coercive force referred to in the offense of obstruction of business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act must be judged by also savoring the importance, scope of protection, and limits of freedom of expression, and the principle of the supplementary nature and last-resort nature of criminal punishment.
The Supreme Court, further emphasizing that in a democratic state freedom of expression is an important constitutional right that must be faithfully guaranteed, and that matters of public concern—such as matters related to a government or state agency’s policy decisions or performance of duties—must be subject to the people’s monitoring and criticism, reversed and remanded the lower court, which had regarded the defendants’ act of expression opposing the exhibition as the exercise of coercive force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will (Supreme Court, Apr. 15, 2025, 2024do16921).
The crux of this judgment is that it expressly introduced the principle of the supplementary nature and last-resort nature of criminal punishment into the judgment of coercive force. That is, even if an act of expression formally impedes business, if it is within the protected scope of constitutional freedom of expression, it must not be readily charged as the coercive force of the offense.
2) Noise and inconvenience to passage in the course of an assembly or demonstration
Because an assembly or demonstration by its nature accompanies some degree of noise or inconvenience to passage, even ordinary citizens not participating in the assembly or demonstration have a duty to tolerate it. Accordingly, the offense is established as the exercise of unlawful coercive force only where, beyond the scope of achieving the purpose of the assembly or demonstration, it causes serious harm to others to a degree that cannot be tolerated by socially accepted standards (Busan District Court, June 29, 2022, 2020godan5331).
In Busan District Court, June 29, 2022, 2020godan5331, the court acquitted, finding that the defendant’s act of speaking on a microphone and using a loudspeaker alone was insufficient to be regarded as coercive force—exceeding the range permitted by socially accepted standards—to a degree that suppressed or confused the victim’s free will (Busan District Court, June 29, 2022, 2020godan5331).
B. Acts amounting to a legitimate exercise of authority
1) A business-related instruction or decision by a person with authority
Even where, as a result of an act, an impediment is caused to the other party’s business, where the actor has authority to be involved in the other party’s decision-making or is in a position to give business-related instructions, absent special circumstances—such as the content or means of the act being impermissible by socially accepted standards—it cannot be said that coercive force was exercised (Supreme Court, Mar. 30, 2023, 2019do7446).
2) A mere solicitation or request
A mere solicitation alone does not amount to the exercise of the coercive force of the offense. To be coercive force, it must reach at least a degree of power that can be assessed as sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will, and a mere solicitation does not reach that degree (Busan High Court, June 24, 2021, 2020no103).
In that judgment, as to the charged facts that the defendant had instructed or solicited a recruitment officer to hire a particular person, the Busan High Court judged that part not guilty, holding that it could not be said to have been proved that such an instruction or solicitation constituted the coercive force of the offense (Busan High Court, June 24, 2021, 2020no103).
3) Where coercive force exercised against a third party does not directly reach the victim
The coercive force of the offense must in principle be exercised against the victim, and the exercise of coercive force directed at a third party can be regarded as the coercive force constituting the offense only where exceptional circumstances are recognized that allow it to be equated with the direct exercise of coercive force against the victim (Seoul High Court, Apr. 21, 2023, 2022no2375).
In that judgment, the Seoul High Court denied the establishment of the offense, holding that even if the defendant company’s act of demanding that a third-party supplier halt supply to a particular company constituted the exercise of coercive force against the supplier, it was difficult to recognize special circumstances allowing it to be equated with the direct exercise of coercive force against the victim (Seoul High Court, Apr. 21, 2023, 2022no2375).
C. The case of an industrial action (a strike) — a narrowing interpretation of coercive force
1) Restriction of the coercive-force concept by the en banc judgment
The Supreme Court en banc held that a strike as an industrial action is not always to be regarded as the offense of obstruction of business, and that it constitutes coercive force and establishes the offense only where all three of the following requirements are satisfied (Supreme Court, Mar. 17, 2011, 2007do482, en banc).
| Requirement | Content |
|---|---|
| (1) Abruptness | Carried out abruptly at a time the employer could not foresee |
| (2) Serious loss | Bringing about serious disruption or enormous loss to the employer’s business operation |
| (3) Suppression of free will | Assessable as capable of suppressing or confusing the employer’s free will regarding the continuation of business |
By interpreting the “coercive force” element of the offense narrowly, this en banc judgment came to take an attitude of restricting the establishment of the offense at the stage of examining whether the elements are satisfied.
2) An individual worker’s refusal to provide labor
Where, for a purpose other than that of an industrial action, a large number of workers refuse to provide labor—by collectively leaving early or being absent at one time under mutual communication—and thereby impede the normal operation of the company’s business, it can be regarded as an act of obstruction of business by the coercive force of a multitude; but an individual worker’s refusal to provide labor that does not reach such a degree cannot be regarded as the “coercive force” of the offense (Suwon District Court, Nov. 17, 2010, 2010godan478).
D. Where the business itself is not a protected object
1) Affairs that are part of mere personal everyday life
Affairs carried out as part of mere personal everyday life, hard to regard as based on occupational or social-life status, do not constitute the “business” protected by the offense, so obstructing them does not establish the offense. An example is the previously introduced Seoul Central District Court, June 26, 2024, 2023no3260, in which a homemaker’s act of driving a vehicle to pick up her child was held to fall within this, and the acquittal was maintained.
2) A public official’s official duties
Official duties performed by a public official in the course of duty are not included in the “business” protected by the offense, so even obstructing a public official’s duties by coercive force does not establish the offense of obstruction of business (Supreme Court, Nov. 19, 2009, 2009do4166, en banc).
E. Acts that stopped at the level of a quarrel or protest
An act that stopped at the level of a mere quarrel or protest may not constitute coercive force. In Busan District Court, Feb. 7, 2024, 2023no2009, the court—considering that the defendant raised his voice and quarreled with the victim but the employees operated normally, that the defendant did not go out into the hall space, and that he did not engage in extreme or violent conduct—maintained the acquittal, holding that it was difficult to conclude that the defendant’s act constituted the coercive force of the offense to a degree sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will (Busan District Court, Feb. 7, 2024, 2023no2009).
3. Comprehensive Summary of the Trend of Restricting Coercive Force
| Type of act | Coercive force? | Key judgment |
|---|---|---|
| An act of expression within the scope of constitutional freedom of expression | Denied in principle | Supreme Court, Apr. 15, 2025, 2024do16921 |
| Noise/inconvenience within the purpose of an assembly or demonstration | Denied | Busan District Court, June 29, 2022, 2020godan5331 |
| A mere solicitation | Denied | Busan High Court, June 24, 2021, 2020no103 |
| A legitimate exercise of authority by a person with authority | Denied in principle | Supreme Court, Mar. 30, 2023, 2019do7446 |
| Coercive force against a third party not directly reaching the victim | Denied in principle | Seoul High Court, Apr. 21, 2023, 2022no2375 |
| A simple strike (abruptness/gravity not met) | Denied | Supreme Court, Mar. 17, 2011, 2007do482, en banc |
| An individual worker’s refusal to provide labor | Denied | Suwon District Court, Nov. 17, 2010, 2010godan478 |
| A mere quarrel/protest level | Denied | Busan District Court, Feb. 7, 2024, 2023no2009 |
| A negative review on a delivery app | Denied | Uijeongbu District Court, July 6, 2023, 2022gojeong655 |
4. Implications of the Recent Trend
Taking the flow of recent precedent together, the courts are restricting the “coercive force” concept of the offense in the following directions.
First, in situations of conflict with constitutional fundamental rights (freedom of expression, the right to collective action, freedom of assembly and demonstration), the courts apply the principle of the supplementary nature and last-resort nature of criminal punishment to judge coercive force strictly (Supreme Court, Apr. 15, 2025, 2024do16921).
Second, where the actor has legitimate authority or status, its exercise is not regarded as coercive force absent special circumstances that make it impermissible by socially accepted standards (Supreme Court, Mar. 30, 2023, 2019do7446).
Third, coercive force must be exercised directly against the victim, and a merely indirect influence through a third party does not in principle constitute coercive force (Seoul High Court, Apr. 21, 2023, 2022no2375).
Fourth, caution must be exercised in applying the offense to a trivial quarrel between neighbors or an act at the level of a mere quarrel or protest (Supreme Court, Oct. 27, 2016, 2016do10956).
This trend is assessed as reflecting the judiciary’s effort to dispel concerns about fundamental-rights infringement arising from the broad application of the offense, and to limit the scope of criminal punishment to substantively dangerous acts.
Key Cases Recognizing “Deception” in the Offense of Obstruction of Business
1. The Basic Legal Principle of Deception
In the offense of obstruction of business by deception, “deception” means that the actor, to achieve the purpose of the act, causes the other party a misperception, mistake, or ignorance and exploits it. For the offense of obstruction of business to be established, it is not required that the result of obstruction of business actually arise; it is enough that the risk of bringing about the result of obstruction arises, and the offense is established even where it is not the performance of the business itself but the propriety or fairness of the business that is obstructed (Seoul Central District Court, Oct. 23, 2024, 2024gojeong285).
That said, for the offense of obstruction of business by deception to be established, merely providing false information is not enough; the deception must actually give rise to the risk of obstruction of business. In particular, in business that screens eligibility requirements upon receiving an application from the other party, the offense of obstruction of business by deception is established only where the person in charge of the business failed to discover the falsity despite sufficient screening; where it stems from the person in charge’s insufficient screening, the offense is not established (Supreme Court, Sept. 14, 2023, 2022do15824; Supreme Court, Sept. 14, 2023, 2023do3645; Supreme Court, Aug. 29, 2024, 2024do9324; Supreme Court, Mar. 12, 2024, 2023do16981).
2. Cases Recognizing Deception, by Type
A. Deception relating to recruitment/personnel business
Deception in recruitment business is recognized where screeners such as interview panel members are made to conduct screening without knowing the false facts, thereby obstructing the fairness of the recruitment business.
1) Manipulating interview scores — Seoul Southern District Court, Dec. 21, 2017, 2017godan5194 (1 year’s imprisonment)
In a case in which the defendant, the head of a public corporation, directed the personnel manager to hire a particular person, and the personnel manager arbitrarily changed the interview scores and obtained the interview panel members’ signatures without their prior consent or understanding, the court found that having the interview panel members perform the interview business without knowing that the scores had been changed constituted deception, and convicted (Seoul Southern District Court, Dec. 21, 2017, 2017godan5194).
In this case, the defendant was found to have: (1) obstructed the interview panel members’ interview business by changing the interview scores in the 2012 additional recruitment of new employees; (2) obstructed the interview panel members’ interview business by manipulating the document-screening scores upward in the 2013 recruitment of intern employees; and (3) obstructed the evaluation members’ evaluation business by altering the task-presentation evaluation-sheet scores in the 2013 recruitment of regular employees (Seoul Southern District Court, Dec. 21, 2017, 2017godan5194).
2) Processing an ineligible person as a document-screening pass — Jeju District Court, Dec. 6, 2019, 2018godan2370 (a fine of KRW 10 million)
In a case in which the defendant, the personnel officer, passed in the document screening 5 applicants who fell short of the eligibility requirements by having filed their move-in report after the announcement date, and reported at the interview to the interview panel members to the effect that the applicants had passed the document screening without issue, thereby having the panel members conduct the interview screening without knowing this, the court recognized this as the offense of obstruction of business by deception (Jeju District Court, Dec. 6, 2019, 2018godan2370).
3) Conspiring in improper recruitment — Seoul Central District Court, Jan. 15, 2021, 2020no2727 (10 months’ imprisonment, etc.)
In a case in which the defendants, knowing of the improper recruitment, took charge of the document screening and selected a particular person as a document-screening pass, and then participated in the interview and selected him as the final successful candidate, thereby joining in the act of obstruction of business by deception, the court judged that the offense is established even where one joins in while knowing—at least conditionally—that improper recruitment is taking place (Seoul Central District Court, Jan. 15, 2021, 2020no2727).
4) Conspiring to recruit an ineligible person — Suwon District Court, Seongnam Branch, Sept. 3, 2025, 2024godan3372 (1 year 6 months’ imprisonment, etc.)
In a case in which the defendants conspired to have defendant A—who did not meet the eligibility requirements set by the ordinance—recruited as secretary-general, by having the interview panel members conduct the interview evaluation without knowing this circumstance, the court recognized this as obstructing, by deception, the interview panel members’ fair interview-evaluation business (Suwon District Court, Seongnam Branch, Sept. 3, 2025, 2024godan3372).
B. Deception relating to online platforms
False reservations on a competitor’s platform — Seoul Central District Court, Oct. 23, 2024, 2024gojeong285 (a fine of KRW 5 million)
In a case in which the defendant, an employee of a competitor, accessed the victim company’s lodging-brokerage platform and made false reservations a total of 102 times for the purpose of acquiring business information, the court recognized the offense of obstruction of business by deception for the following reasons (Seoul Central District Court, Oct. 23, 2024, 2024gojeong285):
- The defendant proceeded with the reservations for the purpose of acquiring business information, with no intent to lodge from the outset, so it was clearly a false reservation.
- The defendant actively concealed his identity—never once using his real name and making reservations under the names and aliases of 10 persons.
- It constituted an act capable of causing the victim company’s employees a misperception or mistake that the reservations were genuine.
- The act of inputting information into an information-processing device such as a computer also constitutes deception where it is done for the purpose of causing the person in charge a misperception or mistake.
C. Deception using a false report
1) False 112 reports about a singing room — Seoul Eastern District Court, July 18, 2024, 2024gojeong119 (a fine of KRW 1.5 million)
In a case in which the defendant made false 112 reports a total of 5 times—although there had been no unlawful hospitality conduct or alcohol sales at the singing room run by the victim—making it hard for the singing room’s customers to stay or revisit, the court recognized this as obstructing, by deception, the victim’s singing-room business (Seoul Eastern District Court, July 18, 2024, 2024gojeong119).
2) False report of sexual-violence victimization — Daejeon District Court, Nov. 24, 2022, 2019godan1501 (6 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 1 year)
In a case in which the defendant, in order to stay at a facility supporting sexual-violence victims, made a false 112 report despite not having been raped, and then received emergency protection at a center supporting women in crisis, the court recognized this as obstructing, by deception or coercive force, the business of counseling and supporting women in crisis (Daejeon District Court, Nov. 24, 2022, 2019godan1501).
D. Submitting false documents relating to R&D — Gwangju District Court, Aug. 14, 2024, 2024gojeong114 (a fine of KRW 3 million)
In a case in which the defendant, to obtain designation as a dedicated R&D department, made false assertions and submitted false supporting materials conforming to them, the court held that where the person in charge of the business screened sufficiently in his own way according to the relevant regulations but failed to discover that the application grounds and supporting materials were false and so accepted the application, the applicant’s deceptive act was the cause, and the offense of obstruction of business by deception is established (Gwangju District Court, Aug. 14, 2024, 2024gojeong114).
E. Deception relating to foreign-exchange remittance business — Seoul Central District Court, July 23, 2024, 2024no672 (3 years 6 months’ imprisonment, etc.)
In a case in which the defendant, although there was no actual trade transaction, obstructed banks’ foreign-exchange remittance business using false export-import documents, the court held that where an applicant makes false assertions to the person in charge and submits false supporting materials conforming to them, and this reaches the point where the person in charge, despite sufficient screening, fails to discover the falsity and accepts the application, the risk of obstruction of business has arisen by the applicant’s deceptive act, and the offense of obstruction of business by deception is established (Seoul Central District Court, July 23, 2024, 2024no672).
F. False apartment-subscription application — Cheongju District Court, Oct. 21, 2021, 2021godan1201 (6 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 1 year)
In a case in which the defendants conspired to falsely input a number of dependents greater than the actual one when applying for an apartment subscription, thereby raising their added points and winning the subscription, the court recognized this as obstructing, by deception, the buyer-selection business of the victim company in charge of the apartment-sale business (Cheongju District Court, Oct. 21, 2021, 2021godan1201).
3. Cases Where Deception Was Denied — the “Insufficient Screening” Principle
A representative type in which the offense of obstruction of business by deception is not established is the case of opening a corporate-name account at a financial institution. The Supreme Court consistently holds that even where an account-opening applicant, with intent to transfer the access medium, opens a corporate-name account at a financial institution while falsely entering on the deposit-transaction application form, etc. facts such as the purpose of the financial transaction or whether there is intent to transfer the access medium, the offense is not established where the financial institution’s person in charge of the account-opening screening, simply believing the applicant’s false answers on the deposit-transaction application form, etc. as they were, opened the corporate-name account without additional confirmation measures such as requesting supporting materials by which the truth of the content could be confirmed (Supreme Court, Sept. 14, 2023, 2022do15824; Supreme Court, Sept. 14, 2023, 2023do3645; Supreme Court, Aug. 29, 2024, 2024do9324; Supreme Court, Mar. 12, 2024, 2023do16981).
This principle applies to recruitment business as well. Even where a career history is falsely entered on a résumé and submitted, if confirming the career history entered on the résumé does not involve special effort or cost for the victim, it may be regarded as stemming from the person in charge’s insufficient screening, so that the offense of obstruction of business by deception may not be established (Seoul Eastern District Court, July 23, 2021, 2021no51).
4. Summary of the Key Standards for Whether Deception Is Recognized
| Category | Deception recognized? | Key factor |
|---|---|---|
| Obtaining interview panel signatures after manipulating interview scores | Recognized | Panel members conducted screening without knowing the scores had been changed |
| Processing an ineligible person as a pass, then conducting the interview | Recognized | Panel members conducted screening without knowing the ineligibility |
| False reservations on a competitor’s platform | Recognized | Repeated reservations with no intent to lodge from the outset, concealing identity |
| Repeated false orders on a delivery app | Recognized | Generating false order information with no actual order intent |
| Obstructing business with false 112 reports | Recognized | Causing customers to leave through false reports |
| False supporting materials not discovered despite sufficient screening | Recognized | The person in charge screened sufficiently but could not discover the falsity |
| False entry when opening a financial-institution account (opened without additional confirmation) | Denied | Stemmed from the person in charge’s insufficient screening |
| False career entry on a résumé (where easily confirmable) | Denied | Stemmed from the person in charge’s insufficient screening |
Comparing the Elements of ‘Obstruction of Business by Deception’ with ‘Fraud,’ and the Concurrence Problem
1. Comparing the Elements of Each Offense
A. Fraud (Criminal Act, Article 347)
Fraud is established by deceiving a person and thereby receiving the delivery of property or acquiring a pecuniary benefit (Criminal Act, Article 347(1)). The statutory penalty is up to 20 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million (Criminal Act, Article 347(1), as amended Dec. 23, 2025).
The “deceptive act” that is an element of fraud means causing a person to fall into a mistake. Accordingly, where there is no deceptive act against a person, it cannot be punished as fraud (Supreme Court, Mar. 27, 2025, 2024do18441; Supreme Court, Jan. 29, 2026, 2022do1862).
The establishment of fraud requires the following elements.
| Element | Content |
|---|---|
| Deceptive act | An act causing a person to fall into a mistake |
| Mistake | The other party’s mistake caused by the deception |
| Disposal act | A disposal of property based on the mistake |
| Acquisition of property/benefit | The delivery of property or the acquisition of a pecuniary benefit |
| Damage | The victim’s pecuniary damage (actual damage not required; the arising of risk suffices) |
| Intent | Intent to defraud (conditional intent suffices) |
B. Obstruction of business by deception (Criminal Act, Article 314(1))
Obstruction of business by deception is established by obstructing a person’s business through deception (Criminal Act, Article 314(1), Article 313). The statutory penalty is up to 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 15 million.
“Deception” means that the actor, to achieve the purpose of the act, causes the other party a misperception, mistake, or ignorance and exploits it (Supreme Court, Mar. 11, 2021, 2016do14415; Supreme Court, Jan. 29, 2026, 2022do1862).
| Element | Content |
|---|---|
| Deception | An act causing the other party a misperception, mistake, or ignorance and exploiting it |
| Business | An occupation, or affairs or an enterprise continuously engaged in |
| Obstruction | The result of obstruction, or the arising of its risk (a risk offense) |
| Intent | Perception or foresight of the obstruction (conditional intent suffices) |
C. Summary of the key differences in elements
| Category | Fraud | Obstruction of business by deception |
|---|---|---|
| Protected legal interest | Property rights | Freedom of business (social and economic activity) |
| Object of the act | The person who makes the property-disposal act | Business (all social activity continuously carried out in social-life status) |
| Purpose of the deception | Inducing a property-disposal act | Obstruction of business |
| Result requirement | Delivery of property or acquisition of pecuniary benefit (for completion) | The arising of the risk of obstruction suffices (a risk offense) |
| Pecuniary damage | Not required (the arising of risk suffices) | Not required |
| Statutory penalty | Up to 20 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million | Up to 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 15 million |
Because fraud has property rights as its protected legal interest, the deceptive act is limited to an act that makes the other party fall into a mistake and perform a property-disposal act, and it reaches completion only upon receiving the delivery of property or acquiring a pecuniary benefit; whereas the protected legal interest of the offense of obstruction of business lies in protecting a person’s social and economic activity through business, so the scope of the protected business is much broader—“all social activity that a person continuously carries out in his social-life status”—and it does not require that the result of obstruction actually arise but is satisfied if the risk of bringing about the result arises (Ulsan District Court, Oct. 31, 2024, 2024no800; Seoul High Court, Jan. 19, 2024, 2022no3155).
2. Where the Same Act Is Charged as Both Offenses
A. The principle — fraud and obstruction of business are separate offenses
Fraud and obstruction of business by deception differ in their elements and protected legal interests, and the establishment of fraud does not generally and typically accompany an act of obstruction of business by deception. Accordingly, where the same act satisfies the elements of both offenses, it in principle constitutes separate offenses (Supreme Court, Sept. 25, 2025, 2024do18174).
B. Three types of concurrence relationship
Where the same act satisfies the elements of both fraud and obstruction of business by deception, the concurrence relationship divides into the following three according to the concrete case.
1) Ideal concurrence — where one act satisfies the elements of both offenses simultaneously
Where the same act satisfies the elements of both fraud and obstruction of business simultaneously, it is handled as ideal concurrence (Criminal Act, Article 40) and punished by the penalty set for the heavier offense, fraud.
For example, in a case in which a person lied that a lost article was his own and received it from a station employee, there is a case holding fraud and obstruction of business to be in an ideal-concurrence relationship and punishing by the penalty set for the heavier offense, fraud (Jeju District Court, Nov. 20, 2024, 2024godan1950; Uijeongbu District Court, Goyang Branch, June 23, 2023, 2023godan880).
2) Substantive concurrence — where the deceptive act is a separate act not naturally accompanying the fraud offense
Where the actor, through a series of deceptive acts carried out before and after the delivery of a loan, obstructed the overall business of the bank’s loan screening and screening of whether to recover the loan, the act of obstruction of business by deception cannot be said to be so minor as not to be separately considered relative to fraud, and it should be regarded as having infringed a new legal interest protected by the offense of obstruction of business, separately from the fraud offense. Accordingly, in this case the act of obstruction of business by deception does not become a non-punishable accompanying act or a non-punishable subsequent act of fraud, but constitutes a separate offense (substantive concurrence) (Supreme Court, Sept. 25, 2025, 2024do18174).
In Ulsan District Court, Oct. 31, 2024, 2024no800, in a case in which the defendants prepared false lease agreements, false employment-certificate documents, and the like and submitted them to the bank, answered falsely to the bank employee’s confirmation call, and pretended to actually reside there during the on-site investigation—a series of active deceptive acts spanning before and after the loan—the court recognized substantive concurrence of fraud and obstruction of business, holding that such acts are hard to regard as naturally accompanying the fraud offense and hard to regard as comprehensively absorbed into the evaluation of fraud (Ulsan District Court, Oct. 31, 2024, 2024no800).
3) Non-punishable accompanying act — where the deceptive act minorly and typically accompanies the fraud offense
By contrast, as in the case of a fraud offense where a clinical-trial contract research organization deceives a clinical-trial sponsor and receives the delivery of property, there is also a case holding that the offense of obstruction of business by deception is a non-punishable accompanying act and is not separately punished, where: (1) the elements of obstruction of business by deception are mostly satisfied; (2) the sponsor’s loss and the research organization’s acquisition of property can be regarded as included in the punishability evaluation of fraud; and (3) the statutory penalty of fraud is much heavier than that of obstruction of business (Seoul High Court, Jan. 19, 2024, 2022no3155).
C. Summary of the standards for judging the concurrence relationship
| Type | Concurrence relationship | Standard |
|---|---|---|
| One same act satisfies the elements of both offenses simultaneously | Ideal concurrence | Singularity and simultaneity of the act |
| The deceptive act is a separate act not naturally accompanying the fraud (a series of active deceptions before and after a loan) | Substantive concurrence | Whether a new legal interest is infringed; whether absorbed into the fraud evaluation |
| The deceptive act generally and typically accompanies the fraud and its unlawfulness/culpability is minor | Non-punishable accompanying act (absorption) | Whether generally/typically accompanying; comparison of statutory penalties |
3. The Special Problem of Using a Computer or Other Information-Processing Device
Where an act such as inputting information into a computer or other information-processing device is done for the purpose of causing a misperception, mistake, or ignorance in the person handling the business on the basis of the input information, it constitutes the deception of the offense of obstruction of business even if the act is not made directly against the person handling the business (Supreme Court, Jan. 29, 2026, 2022do1862).
By contrast, in the case of fraud, even if an act such as inputting information into a computer or other device is not directly aimed at the person making the property-disposal act, if it made the person making the property-disposal act fall into a mistake through the result of the information processing caused by that act, it constitutes a deceptive act against a person and fraud is established. However, where the affairs concerning a change in property are processed mechanically and automatically by a computer or the like without human intervention, it cannot be punished as fraud; in this case, whether the offense of fraud by use of a computer, etc. (Criminal Act, Article 347-2) applies must be examined (Supreme Court, Jan. 29, 2026, 2022do1862).
4. Practical Points
In a case where obstruction of business by deception and fraud concur, the following should be noted.
First, even where the deceptive act was carried out as a means of the fraud offense, where it obstructed a separate business going beyond the deceptive act of fraud—such as the loan-screening business or the business of screening whether to recover the loan—it is handled as substantive concurrence (Supreme Court, Sept. 25, 2025, 2024do18174; Ulsan District Court, Oct. 31, 2024, 2024no800).
Second, because the offense of obstruction of business is a risk offense, it is established even if the result of obstruction does not actually arise; but fraud reaches completion only upon the delivery of property or the acquisition of a pecuniary benefit. Accordingly, even where the fraud stopped at an attempt, the offense of obstruction of business may be established as completed (Supreme Court, Jan. 29, 2026, 2022do1862).
Third, whether the offense of obstruction of business is absorbed as a non-punishable accompanying act is judged by considering comprehensively: (1) whether it generally and typically accompanies fraud; (2) whether the unlawfulness and culpability content of the offense of obstruction of business is minor relative to fraud; and (3) whether it can be regarded as included in the punishability evaluation of fraud (Seoul High Court, Jan. 19, 2024, 2022no3155).
Thank you for reading!
KLAWGURU.COM 
Leave a comment