beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.07.14 2017노995

업무방해등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal lies in the fact that the victim, who was a medical doctor with the same mind as a nurse, has excessively prescribed “stroke,” which is a psychiatrist, to the defendant. Accordingly, the victim was suffering from the side effects and stroke symptoms for a period of three years on July 16, 2014. The defendant revealed his/her truth and tried to deliver documents to the victim only at the time of the completion of the hospital’s medical services, and there was no interference with the hospital’s medical services and no intention to interfere with the defendant’s business.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, (i) a psychiatrist operated by the victim provides medical treatment from 9:0 to 18; and (ii) the victim found the above hospital around 17:50, which was before the completion of hospital medical treatment on August 5, 2016; and (iii) the victim, while there was a nurse H and patient G, etc. in an investigative agency, should “if he/she was aware of this fact, he/she can satis and satch acid.”

It shows how much years it would have reached the end of the year.

“The Defendant made a statement to the effect that “the medical treatment of a hospital was obstructed at the time of the Defendant’s speech and behavior, as well as that of considerable fluence,” and ③ according to the background of the instant case and the record recorded at the time, the Defendant appears to have refused to comply with the victim’s demand for evacuation while repeating the above statement to the effect; ④ at the time of the scene, G was waiting for a prescription, and in the case of a psychiatrist, G was waiting for a prescription. At the time, G was waiting for a prescription. In the case of a psychiatrist, the process of the above procedure is delayed due to the Defendant, ⑤ the witness at the site of the instant case, and the testimony of H and G were also made as stated by the victim.