logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.05.11 2016노1758
일반교통방해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant was merely engaged in a warning at the time near the scene of the demonstration on the date of the assembly of this case, and did not perform functional control, such as traffic obstruction, in collusion with the demonstration team, as stated in the judgment of the court below.

The judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as a joint principal offender of a crime of interference with general traffic, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the joint principal offender.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In light of the legislative purport of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, where an assembly or demonstration considerably deviates from the scope originally reported, or interferes with road traffic by seriously violating the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and thus makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing interference with traffic, general traffic obstruction is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008). In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the court below as follows: (a) the participants’ direct act of causing interference with traffic by taking part in significant deviation from the reported scope or significant violation of the conditions; (b) the participants’ participation or degree of involvement in the assembly or demonstration, where the participants’ joint principal offender was able to take charge of the crime as a common principal offender, it constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic interference is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5280, Nov. 25, 2004). 2), however, the circumstances acknowledged by the court below’s lawful adoption of evidence during the assembly from 200:3:1:00 p.

arrow