logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2014.02.13 2013노133 (1)
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등재물손괴등)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the instant container ordered by the Gangseo-gu Village Association to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles has been transferred to the Gangseo-gu Village Association the ownership of the victim who loaded the container, moving of the container without the consent of the Gangseo-gu Village Association cannot be deemed as the victim’s work.

In addition, the request of the police to remove the instant container is that even if the container was illegal facilities, the act of the victim who attempted to move the container upon the request is not a legitimate duty. Thus, the act of the Defendant’s blocking the movement of container does not constitute the crime of interference with business.

Furthermore, although the defendant was listed on the roof of the victim, it cannot be deemed that the roof of the vehicle was damaged and the victim has not repaired the roof of the vehicle.

The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Even if the defendant's conviction of unfair sentencing is recognized, the sentencing of the court below (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted at the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine: (i) the victim was carrying a container at the entrance of the construction site of this case on March 23, 2012, which was ordered by the Gangwon Village Association at the time of the construction site of this case; (ii) the victim again sought to have the container onto the vehicle again at the police’s request that it would bring the illegal facilities again; and (iii) the Defendant was staying there for about two hours in order to prevent the victim from bringing the container together with A; (iv) the victim was asked from the police that the container should not be unloaded before the container was unloaded; and (v) the illegal facility was installed.

arrow