(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.06.25 2018노3682 | 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) 광주지방법원 2019.06.25 2018노3682

업무방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a fact that two vehicles were parked at the entrance of the victim's restaurant, such as a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, there was no intention to interfere with the work of the victims.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case at the lower court, on the grounds of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant's act, as stated in the judgment of the court below, appears to be an act of interfering with the victim's restaurant operation or at least a risk of interfering with business affairs, and the defendant also committed the above act, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined: (a) the defendant's act of parking considerably restricted the victim's access to the restaurant at the entrance of the victim; (b) the situation continues to exist for a long time; and (c) if the defendant spreads around the restaurant, it appears that the restaurant customer would have caused considerable inconvenience to the restaurant; and (d) the defendant, despite the victim's resistance or the police control, continued the above act.

The court below asserted that the two vehicles of this case were parked in front of the entrance of the victim's restaurant, even though there is sufficient space to park immediately next to the defendant's office, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and according to the image of the photograph taken by the defendant at the scene of this case, and that the defendant could not move from the two vehicles of this case due to lack of oil. However, the defendant was the police officer.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2014.09.18 2014노424

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.15 2020나55529

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2019.01.31 2018고정950

-수원지방법원 2019.07.19 2019노2503

-울산지방법원 2014.12.18 2014고단2069