(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.11.30 2017노924 | 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) 전주지방법원 2017.11.30 2017노924

업무방해등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the facts charged No. 1 of the facts charged, the Defendant merely removed signboards installed by the victim for the construction of the building located in the J of Yong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant building”) prior to the ownership of the Defendant, and there was no intention to destroy property or interfere with business, and there was no interference with the Defendant’s business.

2) In relation to the facts charged No. 2, the Defendant did not have expressed a wish to the victim or obstructed the victim’s business.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant alleged at the lower court that there was no intention to damage property or to interfere with the business of the victim, and that there was no interference with the victim’s business, as in the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by providing a detailed statement on the determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel under the title of “judgment on the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion.”

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

3. The crime of this case with regard to the wrongful argument of sentencing is recognized as the necessity of punishment for obstructing the business of the victim by finding the victim's real estate office and removing the victim's signboard, and the fact that the victim did not agree with the victim is acknowledged.

However, the degree of interference with business due to the crime of interference with the business of this case is relatively minor, the first offender, and the defendant's winning in the lawsuit against the victim and carrying out the construction of the building after winning the lawsuit against the victim, and the circumstances leading to the crime of this case.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.02.20 2017노2549

-대전지방법원 2017.08.11 2016고정1074

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.22 2017노2593

-서울북부지방법원 2017.03.23 2016노2456

-서울동부지방법원 2017.08.24 2017노299