beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.03.21 2018노2669

업무방해

Text

The judgment below

Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below) to find D, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A’s act of finding a place of short sale operated by the victim for the purpose of finding D and leaving the place of short sale and leaving it up on the floor at least 30 minutes of interest, and neglecting it constitutes a exerting power to the extent that it interferes with the victim’s business of short sale. In addition, inasmuch as Defendant B found D along with Defendant B’s interest while he was able to find it out and stop the victim’s funeral, it is reasonable to recognize the Defendants’ conspiracy relation. However, it is reasonable to determine otherwise and determine otherwise, the judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendants on the obstruction of business from around 18:00 on November 15, 2017 to from around 19:00 on the same day, and thus, it is unlawful in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. Defendant A’s above sentence is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below's determination that the Defendants' act did not reach the degree of interference with business on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is just and acceptable, and it does not seem that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. We examine both the prosecutor and Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing and the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

In light of the type of crime of this case, the method of crime of this case, and the degree of interference with business, etc., the punishment for the crime of this case shall be less severe.