(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.08.14 2017노402

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) 의정부지방법원 2017.08.14 2017노402

일반교통방해

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the victim's dry field can pass through without going through the Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, which is the defendant's possession, and the roads where the defendant's access is restricted are the roads newly established by the defendant, and the restriction on access constitutes the legitimate exercise of ownership.

In addition, the victim did not form a farmer at the time of the case.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute an interference with business.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to mistake of facts or interference with business affairs.

2. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant purchased the Gyeonggi-gun C Jeoncheon-gun from around November 2014 to October 13, 2015, acquired the ownership of the land, and then fixed the hack pole to the ground at the entrance of the victim D’s dry field (hereinafter “road”). The Defendant continued the locking device to stop the victim from entering his dry field.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's farming business by force.

3. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the ground that the victimized person used the instant road to set up a farmer’s houses, and there was no track or road for driving.

4. Determination on whether a deliberation was made

A. The establishment of a crime of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of the result of interference with business, but is adequate when there is a danger of interference with business, but it does not constitute a crime of interference with business if there is no risk of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9028, Apr. 27, 2007). B. According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below and the court below, it can be recognized that the road of this case is part of the road used by the victim D for access to dry field, and the victim is the road of this case at the court below.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.01.19 2016고정593

-광주지방법원 2018.11.22 2018노1372

-대전지방법원 2019.11.20 2019고정12

-대구지방법원 2017.11.09 2017노2421

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.22 2016노279