(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.10.30 2015노1307

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.10.30 2015노1307

업무방해등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) As to the obstruction of business under Article 1.5 (e) of the Criminal Act as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s business by causing disturbance as stated in the above criminal facts. However, the date is not May 14, 2015, but May 11, 2015, which is the date indicated in the above criminal facts. If the Defendant committed a crime of obstruction of business at the date indicated in the above criminal facts, the crime of obstruction of business under Article 1. D. of the Criminal Act and the crime of obstruction of business under Article 1.1.4 (d) of the judgment of the court below overlaps considerably in time with the crime of obstruction of business under Article 1.2 (2) of the Criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court below. Therefore, the date indicated in this part of the charges

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant already received a notice of KRW 50,000,000 for a penalty due to the above facts constituting the crime, and thus, the judgment of the court below should be acquitted.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below, considering the CCTV images recorded at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime No. 1.e., paragraph (1) of the same Article, the fact that the defendant interfered with business around May 14, 2015, which is the date and time stated in the crime in the judgment of the court below, is sufficiently recognized (the indictment is written at around 18:40, May 14, 2015). However, according to the CCTV images (Evidence No. 131 of the evidence record) and the second protocol of examination of evidence of the prosecutor’s office (Evidence No. 233 of the evidence record), the date and time of the crime in question is “ around 20:52, May 14, 2015.”

In light of the fact that the defendant is not the date of crime, but at the time of crime, even if he recognizes the date and time of crime without changing the indictment, he shall be disadvantageous to the defendant.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.01.20 2016노2329

-서울고등법원 2014.10.23 2014노1305

-서울서부지방법원 2014.10.16 2014노463

-서울고등법원 2013.01.31 2012노3564

-부산지방법원 2013.12.12 2013노1840