beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.04.11 2017고단5324

업무방해

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 1,00,000 won and by imprisonment of 10 months for each of the defendants B.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B On March 4, 2016, the Seoul High Court sentenced one year to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and completed the execution of the sentence on November 5, 2016.

1. The Defendant: (a) while drinking alcohol with “E cafeteria” located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on September 22 and 20, 2017; (b) around September 22, 2017, the Defendant: (c) had the Victim F (V, 58 years of age) who is the owner of the business divided the horses; and (d) had the Victim F (V, who is the owner of the business divided the horses; and (e) was cut to his/her own tables on the ground that he/she is a ship-to-ship; (b) he/she immediately left the victim in his/her table for the reason that he/she is a ship-to-ship and a ship-to-ship; and (c) he/she immediately agreed

” 라며 욕설을 하고, 피해자가 겁을 먹고 이를 피하려 하자 테이블을 들고 엎으려고 시도하였으나 피해자가 막아 실패하였으며, 피해자를 향해 주먹으로 때리는 시늉을 하는 등 약 1 시간 20분 가량 행패를 부려 그곳에 있던 손님 2명이 가게를 나가게 하는 등 위력으로 피해자의 음식점 영업 업무를 방해하였다.

2. Around September 22, 2017, Defendant B reported that there was a customer who frank as described in paragraph 1 in the “E cafeteria” at around September 22 and 35, 2017, and the Defendant was called out after receiving 112 a report, Defendant B attempted to arrest Defendant B in the act of committing a crime suspected of interfering with A’s business, and whether the Defendant reported “A”;

what kind of swel swelin;

Police refers to the Rab "Woo", the Habb Hab Hab Hab Hab Hab 2 to 3 times drinking, the Hab Hab Hab Hab Hab Hab, and the police assigned to the patrol vehicle for carrying the Hab Hab Hab la;

민원이 더 쌔다, 씨 발 놈 아 ”라고 욕설을 하며 A이 타고 있는 순찰차의 뒷문을 열고, 이어서 H의 경고에도 불구하고 “A 을 보내줘 라 ”라고 소리를 지르며 주먹으로 H의 가슴을 3~4 회 가량 세차게 밀쳐 폭행하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's 112 report processing and lawful execution of duties concerning arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ each.