beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.11.14 2013노2941

업무방해등

Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

【Judgment on Grounds for Appeal】

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant: (a) dices alcohol together with the Defendant 2 Dog-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri (hereinafter “F”); (b) the Defendant requested F to issue a receipt while settling the price; (c) the Defendant continued to request F to issue a simplified receipt with no trade name entry and seal; and (d) the Defendant did not interfere with the business of G Anno-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-

2. The victim F’s statement that seems to be consistent with each of the facts charged in this part of the judgment is the evidence, the statement from the J’s investigative authority that operates a restaurant in the same building, and the singular photographs, entrance, damaged photographs, and string glass photographs, etc. No. 2.

First of all, as seen in the summary of the grounds of appeal, the Defendant submitted two originals of a simplified receipt issued by F to an investigation agency by asserting that “F reported the Defendant as a suspicion of interference with business and damage to property in order to conceal illegal sales of alcoholic beverages, etc.” (Evidence No. 94 pages), and that the said simple receipt was written and written by the National Scientific Investigation Agency, at the National Institute of Research and Investigation, the said simple receipt was written and written by the Defendant, the Defendant, the Defendant, and the F were written and recorded. The following results showed that the penology and F recorded in the above simple receipt were written and different from the penology of the Defendant, the Defendant, and the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a simplified receipt without the supplier’s trade name and seal because “F was demanded by the Defendant to issue a receipt from the Defendant and there was concern that sales of alcoholic beverages might be discovered.”