(영문) 제주지방법원 2012.11.22 2011노699 | 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) 제주지방법원 2012.11.22 2011노699

업무방해등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Defendant

The sentence against B shall be pronounced.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) Defendant A was found in the “F clothes” store operated by the victim E (hereinafter “instant store”). However, there was no significant fluorial fact that the victim was “the removal of the same thing, the alteration of the morale, and the drinking house”, and there was no fact that the victim did not have any disturbance, such as gathering a liquid book within the store, and there was no fact that the customer did not enter, and there was no fact that the customer did not interfere with the victim’s business by force.

(2) The Defendants violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the Defendants) recognize the fact that the Defendants jointly committed the victim. However, even if the victim did not have been injured and the victim sustained the injury, there is no causal relationship between the Defendants’ assault and the injury of the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (defendant A: fine of 2 million won, and fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment ex officio (Defendant B) prior to the judgment on Defendant B’s assertion, the record reveals that the Defendant received a suspended sentence of fine of KRW 300,000,000 from this court on June 13, 2012, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 21, 2012. As such, the crime for which judgment became final and conclusive and the crime at the time of original judgment are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, with regard to the crime of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and after examining whether to reduce or exempt the sentence, the part of Defendant B among the judgment below is no longer maintained.

However, even though there is a ground for ex officio reversal, Defendant B's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to a trial at the court.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Judgment on the argument about obstruction of business (Defendant A).

참조조문

-폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률

-형법 제39조 제1항

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2011.11.24 2011고단549

-수원지방법원 2019.01.25 2018고정1189

-수원지방법원 2014.04.30 2013고정3503

-의정부지방법원 2016.09.01 2016노485

-울산지방법원 2016.09.01 2016고단1874