beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.07.02 2015노522

업무방해등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The defendant does not pay a fine.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the defendant did not use violence against the victims, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that found him guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) around 00:30 on April 26, 2014; (b) around the main point of the trade name “F” operated by the Victim E (F) located in Suwon-gu, Busan (58; (c) and expressed that he would help the victim G (F) who is an employee in front of the main point of the “F,” and without any justifiable reason, assaulted the victim’s right shoulder with her hand; and (d) the victim E continued to use the victim’s right shoulder; and (e) the victim E did not speak at all.g., the victim E “I amba”. The defect “I ambafafafafa” was “I ambafafaf, kh, and knbafaf,” and assaulted the victim’s right hand.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged based on the macroscopic evidence.

C. The following circumstances are revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court below's decision. i.e., ① a witness of the situation at the time appeared in the court of a party and testified that there was no enemy who did not commit an assault by the Defendant’s time, time, place, or assault by the E; ② a witness G and E of the court below stated from the investigation agency to the court of the court below that the Defendant’s shoulder was sealed, and they reached E due to his finger, but according to CCTV images, there was no part to view that the Defendant exercised any physical force as described in the facts charged, as well as G where it was difficult to readily believe them. In full view of these circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient.