logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.07.14 2016노216
업무방해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not interfere with the operation of the victims’ business by force as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby finding the guilty guilty.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the victim E and F statements to the effect that the victim F had the victim go against the disturbance, such as continuing the victim E to put the victim under severe humiliation, and continuously taking the microphones installed at the stage by the investigation agency and the court of the court below, and, at the court of the court below, the victim F attempted to restrain the defendant, and the defendant attempted to put the victim to go against the victim. ② At the time, the victim E and F statements to the effect that they were in the stage.

J state in the court of the court below that the defendant was satisfy by taking the stage satisfy and satisfying microphones carried by customers and satisfying them, and the defendant also was unsatisfyd at the investigative agency.

In full view of the fact that the defendant made a statement about about 20 to 30 seconds to the victim E, etc., it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the victim's business operation by exercising force, such as putting the victim E a large amount of blish, and blicking about 20 to 30 seconds, etc., so the judgment of the court below is just and it is not unlawful as the defendant alleged, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, it is recognized that the defendant has mistakenly recognized the crime of insult, and that the victims of the crime of interference with the duties do not want the punishment of the defendant.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime.

arrow