logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.10.02 2014고정299
업무방해
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged is the person who manages C land at both weeks, and the victim D is the person who operates the penture, etc. in the name of E from F.

On July 1, 201, 201, the Defendant: (a) around 07:01, at Yangju-si, included part of the land on the access route of the victim’s pention operated by the Defendant, and (b) obstructed the victim’s pension business by force by neglecting the passage of the vehicle by piling up to the entrance door of the pention on the ground that the pent customer passed through the land through the land.

B. The Defendant’s month

4. Around 08:30, at the above place, a person interferes with the victim’s pension business by force by selling the land using a scke for the foregoing reasons and piling heavy stones in that place, thereby obstructing the passage of vehicles.

C. The Defendant’s month

5. Around 11:11, at the same place as above, the victim interfered with the penting business by force by putting the vehicle up with hand for the foregoing reasons, thereby obstructing the passage of the vehicle.

Defendant’s Month

6. Around 06:18, at the above place, the victim interfered with the penting business by force by putting up stone with hand for the foregoing reasons, thereby obstructing the passage of the vehicle.

Judgment

A. In establishing the crime of interference with business, it does not require the result of interference with business actually, and it is sufficient that there is a risk of causing interference with business.

However, since the crime of interference with business is not established if there is no concern about the occurrence of the result, if there is a substitute and sufficient passage is possible, this crime is not established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9028 Decided April 27, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5432 Decided October 27, 2005, etc.) B.

In light of this, the following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court.

(1) The victim shall be the FY E in both weeks.

arrow