logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.02.05 2013고정829
업무방해
Text

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment on Defendant B is publicly announced.

Reasons

1. Defendant A is the owner of Gyeonggi-gun D, etc., Defendant B is the owner of the above land, and Defendant B is the victim E is the owner of the above land, and the victim E is the person who won the F of Gyeonggi-gun, which is the neighboring land of the above land.

From March 27, 2012, at F, around 15:00, the Defendants discovered that Defendant B demanded the employees of the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation from the wind that the victim removed the boundary trees installed in the preceding day, and operated the vehicle in the direction of the victim to re-establish the boundary trees, and that the victim parked the vehicle in the place where the previous boundary trees were located before the time when the victim avoided the vehicle, and the victim demanded that “the victim move the vehicle again because there is no boundary point, so it is moving the vehicle again,” the Defendant B interfered with the victim’s chest, and Defendant B interfered with the survey business by stopping the victim’s chest, “I am flick, flick, and flick,” and Defendant A interfered with the survey business by failing to conduct a survey at least one-hour level to leave the vehicle into the building without leaving the vehicle as it is.

2. The term “defensive force”, which is part of the constituent elements of the crime of interference with business under Article 314 of the Criminal Act, means a force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., although the victim’s free will is not practically required to suppress.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do1589 delivered on October 12, 1995). In other words, E requests the Korea Cadastral Corporation to clarify the boundary of the Gyeonggi Hyeong-gun F (hereinafter “instant land”) at the boundary point of D on March 26, 2012 (hereinafter “this case’s land”). Defendant B, a manager of adjoining land, installed three boundary lines at the boundary point of D (hereinafter “this case’s land”).

arrow