(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.01.11 2016노1810

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.01.11 2016노1810

업무방해교사

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) the Defendant’s instruction at the construction site of this case, the notice was attached to the exercise of lien and the entrance was locked.

Even if the victim F of the school juristic person did not have any problem in the access of the victim F of the school juristic person or the progress of the construction, and there was no risk of causing interference with the business, so it is not a crime of interference with the business.

(2) The Defendant, who is a representative, issued the above orders in order to exercise the right of retention of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), is a justifiable act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the term “influence of business operation” includes not only interference with the execution of business itself, but also wide obstruction of business operation (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do3767, May 14, 199, etc.). It does not require that the result of interference with business operation is not actually generated, and there is sufficient risk that the result of interference with business operation would result in the interference (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3901, Jul. 14, 2011). It was possible to enter the construction site of this case at a place other than the entrance at the construction site of this case, other than the entrance at the construction site of this case.

Even if the Defendant had B, on the entrance entrance of the construction site of this case, attached a notice to the effect that E is exercising the right of retention, and prevented the workers who sent the victim by locking the entrance to the entrance of the construction site of this case from having access to the entrance of the construction site of this case, constitutes an act of obstructing the victim’s work by force.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

(2) The Defendant’s determination on the assertion of justifiable act is identical to the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment.

참조판례

-대법원 1999. 5. 14. 선고 98도3767 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.13 2015노4094

-수원지방법원 2017.10.19 2017노4229

-서울남부지방법원 2018.07.12 2017노1535

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.21 2017노4482

-서울북부지방법원 2016.06.09 2015노2393