(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.12.24 2015노1050 | 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) 창원지방법원 2015.12.24 2015노1050

업무방해

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles that, although the defendant could not be deemed to have interfered with the complainant's land lease business on the following grounds, the defendant interfered with the complainant's land lease business by force.

① On December 23, 2013, the fact that the Defendant did not have any dispute over the increase in rent of the instant land between the complainant and the complainant was not sufficient to deem that the lease agreement between the Defendant and the complainant was terminated.

Therefore, since the defendant can legally use and benefit from the land of this case in the capacity of tenant, the defendant cannot be deemed to have interfered with the lease business of the complainant.

② The Defendant had lived in the village from the time when he was born to the complainants and elementary school, and had leased the instant land from the complainants for about seven years from around 2007 to around 7 years. In light of the social, economic status and authority of the Defendant and the complainants, the date and place of the act, etc., the Defendant cannot be deemed to constitute “deficial power” as provided for in the crime of interference with business, in view of the social status and authority of the Defendant and the complainants.

③ Although the Defendant was in a legitimate lessee’s status as to the instant land at the time, the complainant entered into a new lease agreement with I on the instant land. The said lease agreement between the complainant and I cannot be deemed as an “business” subject to protection of the crime of interference with business.

B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence imposed by the lower court (a fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. From around 2007, the Defendant leased each of the lands in Jinju-si D, E, and F from the complainant C.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2016.03.31 2015노541

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2019.05.16 2018고합225

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2015.04.29 2014고정434

-제주지방법원 2015.09.09 2015고정66

-서울북부지방법원 2016.06.09 2016고단320