(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.12.02 2020노1493 | 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) 수원지방법원 2020.12.02 2020노1493

업무방해

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (a mistake of facts, Defendant B: misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

A. As to Defendant A’s crime committed on May 10, 2018, the victim G tunnel construction work cannot be deemed to have reached the level of worth protecting the Defendant’s relationship, it does not constitute an act subject to protection of the crime of interference with business.

The defendant's act of interference with business cannot be deemed as a force demanded in the crime of interference with business.

B. As to the Defendants’ crime committed on May 26, 2018, the victim I corporation’s civil engineering work duty cannot be deemed to have reached the level of worth protecting the Defendants in relation to the relationship with the Defendants. Therefore, it does not constitute an act subject to protection of the crime of interference with business. (2) Defendant A’s act of carrying a loudspeaker and taking the wheels of a dump truck, and Defendant B’s act of taking a photograph of the wheels of a dump truck, cannot be deemed to constitute a force

3) There was no conspiracy to commit this part of the crime. 4) The construction site of this case had a separate entrance and a substitute way other than the entry and exit under the facts charged of this case. Thus, there was no concern about the occurrence of interference with civil engineering work.

2. The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail, and convicted all the facts charged of this case.

Examining the judgment of the court below and the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendants.

① The Defendants’ act of interference with the Defendants’ work on May 26, 2018 is that “after the Defendants conspired to commit an act in collusion, from May 26, 2018 to May 08:05 to 10:00, Defendant A is called “I” with a loudspeaker, and G.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.27 2014노675

-인천지방법원 2019.05.30 2018노3676

-수원지방법원 2012.11.14 2012노3506

-수원지방법원 2013.10.10 2013노2145

-울산지방법원 2015.09.25 2015노495