(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.08.20 2015노184 | 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 2015.08.20 2015노184

업무방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant said that the Defendant would have been working in the victim’s taxi for about five minutes, and that there was only a vagabonds with the victim before arrival at the destination. Therefore, there was no intention to interfere with the victim’s taxi business.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts admitted by the lower court as to the mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it can be recognized that the Defendant had a criminal intent to interfere with the victim’s taxi business by failing to comply with the victim’s lower demand.

1) The victim consistently reported to 112 by the investigative agency on the following grounds: “The defendant continued to take a bath and start up until he arrives at the destination after he was on his own taxi; 30 minutes later; 112 minutes later; the defendant did not pay the taxi expenses even after his arrival at the police station; 30 minutes later; and the defendant paid the taxi expenses in short of the police officer’s demand even after his arrival at the police station, but he returned the money again by making a return of the money. The defendant intentionally failed to arrive at the destination; 12,60 pages of the investigation record; 112 reported the victim immediately after his arrival at the destination; 2. The receipt of the report on the grounds for arrest of the victim in the act of committing the crime and the reason for non-payment of the victim’s statement are the same as the part on which the victim stated (Article 7 of the investigation record); 3. The defendant’s statement is acknowledged as credibility when he made a false statement by the victim to the public in light of the victim’s attitude to make a statement at the investigative agency.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2013.01.10 2012노2090

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.09 2017노1156

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.31 2016고정421

-서울남부지방법원 2017.04.13 2017고단257

-서울동부지방법원 2016.11.11 2016노840