logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.08.10 2017고정414
업무방해
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant is the chairperson of the temporary emergency response committee as a member of the D Redevelopment Association in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, and the victim E is the president of D Redevelopment Association.

On June 10, 2016, the Defendant held that “G” located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F in order for a victim to hold an ordinary general meeting of the association, which was rented around 15:00 on June 10, 2016, the Defendant provided that H in charge of G space rental work, with around 20 members of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee in the name of about 20 persons in charge of G space rental work, is able to exercise power, and that “if it is possible to hold the general meeting of the said association, it would be impossible to continue the rental work in the future,” and accordingly, revoked the above rental.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the general meeting of the redevelopment partnership president by force.

2. The “power of force” of the crime of interference with the determination of a person’s free will is all force that may lead to suppression and confusion, regardless of whether it is tangible or intangible or intangible, and the victim’s intent to freedom is not restricted in reality, but should be sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s consolation, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do495 delivered on May 28, 199, etc.). However, according to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, H in charge of the rent-to-rent operation, where the Defendant, etc. was found in G at the time, stating that it is difficult for six persons to visit the elderly, and that there may occur a non-commercial accident, but it did not think that it is intimidation, but it did not consider that G is likely to mainly cause harm to the user, and that it did not have been revoked by considering the fact that the Defendant’s statement was made to the other user.

The facts are as above.

arrow