logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.06 2017고단3285
업무방해등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 29, 2017, the Defendant: (a) expressed, without any justifiable reason, the victim’s “E” point in the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the victim’s D operation on the 1st underground floor; and (b) expressed, to other customers at the Gap-si’s own main point, “Ah-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h

In the event that a dogbrug is discarded, it was known that the dogbrug is fluored, and thus, the dogbrushe was fluored by breaking a brush, beer, beer, and other glass bed and damaged on the floor.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's main business by force.

2. The Defendant assaulted the victim by taking the face of the victim D(56) who did the above disturbance at the same time, at the same time, and at the same place, blus and drinking blus and drinking 10 times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made with D;

1. Application of victim faces photographs and statutes governing the scene of damage;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence) and the selection of each fine for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act (to the extent that the amount is aggregated) shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Criminal Procedure Act”) prevents the victim’s business by destroying the main body of the Defendant, etc., and assaulting the victim to the end, and did not recover the victim’s damage.

The Defendant continued the aforementioned act even when the police officer was dispatched and prevented.

The defendant recognized the crime of this case, and the same crime of this case is somewhat passed, and is living with the supply and demand of basic living for the aged.

In addition, the age, sex, family relationship, criminal records, the background of this case, and the subsequent progress, etc. of the defendant.

arrow