(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.08.25 2015노4112 | 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) 대구지방법원 2016.08.25 2015노4112

업무방해등

Text

Defendant

D, Defendant K, Defendant L, and Defendant M are dismissed, respectively.

Defendant H of the lower judgment.

Reasons

1. Of the instant facts charged against the Defendants, the lower court dismissed the prosecution against each of the defamations by Defendants H and L, and convicted the Defendants of the remainder of the facts charged. Since the Defendants appealed only to the aforementioned guilty part, the dismissed part of the indictment became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the scope of this court’s adjudication is limited to the remaining part of the facts charged in this case, excluding the dismissal part of the above indictment against Defendant H and Defendant L.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and mistake of facts);

A. The lower court, among the facts charged in the instant case, recognized the Defendants’ establishment of a crime of interference with business as to the obstruction of business with the victim AE on May 14, 2014. However, since it is an act in accordance with the existing practice, it is not unlawful, and first, since the corporate managing officers were committed while exercising their power, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have committed a crime of interference with business.

B) In addition, the lower court recognized the Defendants’ establishment of a obstruction of business with respect to the obstruction of business against AM and AL among the facts charged in the instant case, but, as at the time, AM and AL did not engage in the actual business, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have committed a obstruction of business.

2) Of the instant facts charged, Defendant D and Defendant H recognized the establishment of a obstruction of business with respect to the obstruction of business with respect to the victim AE on May 16, 2014 among the instant facts charged, but this is an act in accordance with the existing practice, and thus, is not unlawful, and first, the company manager was committed while exercising power, and thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have committed a obstruction of business with respect to the Defendants.

B. The sentence against the Defendants (Defendant D: a fine of KRW 1.5 million; Defendant H: a fine of KRW 3 million; Defendant K, Defendant L; Defendant M: each fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio determination.

A prosecutor shall be at the trial of the court.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.09.15 2017노1196

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.31 2017노495

-서울남부지방법원 2017.04.14 2016노2327

-인천지방법원 2018.08.16 2018노874

-수원지방법원 2016.06.10 2015노5582