logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2013.04.18 2012노2497
업무방해
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The threat of interference with business by the summary of the grounds for appeal does not necessarily mean the exercise of physical power or tangible force by any force that is capable of suppressing and mixing human intent. The Defendant’s act of taking the Defendant’s hand in order to restrain D, who is the Director of the Management Office of Microbials, seeking to broadcast without permission at the Management Office, and the Defendant’s act of punishing D and vagas with intent to not depin microbs constitutes force of interference with business.

2. Around 16:40 on December 16, 201, the Defendant: (a) arbitrarily broadcasted without following relevant procedures at the management office of the Namyang-si, Namyang-si; and (b) even though the victim D, who is the management office of the above management office, prevented the operation of the management office of the victim by force, such as continuing broadcasting, making a disturbance with the victim, and interfering with the management office of the victim by force.

3. The judgment of the court below held that the Defendant’s failure to broadcast was confirmed by the Defendant and D’s failure to remove them, and the Defendant and D frequently broadcasted while working at the management office around December 201. However, the Defendant left the former head of the management office and worked at the management office around December 2, 2011. On the other hand, D was first left the head of the management office on the same day. ② The Defendant’s failure to broadcast, ② the Defendant’s failure to broadcast the Defendant’s hand, and 30 seconds in order to get the Defendant’s grandchildren deducted from the Defendant who was suffering from microcredit, abandoned the broadcast, and reported D to the police by assault, and ③ the Defendant did not use force on the part of the Defendant, on the ground that there was lack of evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant did not interfere with the business of this case merely by force.

arrow