(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.21 2017노3866

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.21 2017노3866

재물은닉등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal and the submission period of each defense counsel's written opinion that was submitted after the appeal is examined to the extent that it supplements legitimate grounds for appeal.

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) The facts charged in this part of the charges include F as the victim’s obstruction of the exercise of rights on October 12, 2016 and on October 19, 2016, and each of the charges charged in this part include F. However, the victim F did not have any contractual obligation relationship with the victim C and B, and there is no fact that the contract with the victim was entered into with the victim, so the victim F’s possession of the victim F for the “E” restaurant (hereinafter “E restaurant”) is obviously illegal possession. As such, the part of each of the charges charged in this part does not constitute a crime of interference with the exercise of rights or the intrusion of a structure.

B) On September 30, 2016, the victim C and B continued to operate the instant restaurant to a new “E” restaurant located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government after completely leaving the instant restaurant, and there was no fact that the victim F and the instant restaurant were to operate the said restaurant as a club. Therefore, the victim C and B did not occupy the instant restaurant as of October 12 or 19, 2016.

Therefore, among these facts charged, the part concerning victim C and B does not constitute a crime of obstructing the exercise of rights or intrusion on a structure.

2) As seen earlier, as seen in the facts charged, the victim F illegally occupied the instant restaurant and did not actually operate the restaurant. As such, the Defendant corrected the said restaurant entrance as a bicycle lock as shown in this part of the facts charged.

Even such defendant's act does not constitute a crime of interference with business.

3) The defendant's goods are concealed in this part of the facts charged.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2021.01.12 2020노2045

-대구지방법원 2018.02.21 2017노2804

-서울북부지방법원 2018.10.19 2018노1221

-서울남부지방법원 2018.03.23 2018고정74

-인천지방법원 2016.05.18 2015노4006