(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.10.11 2017노472 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.10.11 2017노472

업무방해등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles (a interference with business affairs) are the fact that the Defendant was friendly to the floor of the loss. However, this constitutes a legitimate act because there was an action to resist the rejection of a request to re-issuance of a receipt, and thus, there was no intention to interfere with business.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The lower court’s determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is sufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s act of avoiding disturbance by taking a bath at the marina calculation team and putting the accounting team into the hands room, etc. was an act obstructing the operation of the victim’s marina, and at the time, the Defendant had the intent to commit such an act.

On the other hand, the Defendant determined that it is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by each evidence in the holding of the lower judgment, in full view of the fact that the Defendant, while under the influence of liquor 4 illness at the time, only part of his behavior in the above E E E E, is memory (the page 33 of the investigation record).

2) Examining the various circumstances described above in the judgment of the court below in light of the records and comparison of the above detailed statements, under the premise that the Defendant was aware of the disturbance by having the hump and the hump as stated in this part of the facts charged, such an act constitutes an act interfering with the operation of the victim’s marina business, and as long as the Defendant had the intent to commit the above act, there was an intentional interference with the business.

The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles or by mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant and his defense counsel, which affected the judgment.

In addition, even if there was a purpose to resist against the defendant's refusal of his reasonable demand.

In light of the above, there is a disturbance.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.02.09 2016고정697

-수원지방법원 2017.11.16 2017고단4251

-대전지방법원 2018.10.11 2018노959

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2016.07.05 2016고단455

-수원지방법원 2018.04.06 2017노8663