beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2014.11.24 2014고단1160

업무방해

Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the owner of Kimpo-si C and D land, and the victim E is the owner of Kimpo-si F, G, and H land adjacent to the above land, who operates a factory of “I” on the F of Kimpo-si and Kimpo-si.

While the Defendant had consulted on the purchase and sale of D land owned by the Victim and the Defendant, the Victim withdrawn his intention to purchase, and the Defendant was willing to interfere with the Defendant’s factory business by making vehicle access difficult at the I factory.

On April 12, 2014, at around 08:00, the Defendant installed a retaining wall equivalent to approximately 15 meters of the 15 meters away from the boundary line of the G land owned by the Defendant, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, which is owned by the Defendant, to make it difficult for the Defendant to enter the said I factory due to the fixed door of the said I factory. On the land of Kimpo-si, eight gardens were brought up on the land of Kimpo-si, and prevented the Defendant from entering the said I factory by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness J and E;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 314 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Attraction of a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act of KRW 100,000 per day;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel of Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the suspended sentence: fine 3,00,000 won) (the defendant has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, the installation of a boundary wall and a garden in the defendant's land due to the boundary dispute with the victim, the victim also has some responsibility, such as the defendant's land intrusion and use of the defendant's land as an access route and a parking lot, and the defendant has some space for the victim's vehicle traffic, and the victim has left a part of the basic wall installed in his/her land, and the victim seems to be able to enter the victim's factory as of now by removing a part of the basic wall installed in