(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.02.21 2018노946

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) 서울서부지방법원 2019.02.21 2018노946

업무방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act interfered with the Defendant’s business since the defective victim’s order to block electricity to the victim who is expected not to pay electricity charges was obstructed by the Defendant’s act of blocking electricity in the time period during which the victim does not run.

The crime of interference with business cannot be seen as the exercise of force as referred to in the crime of interference with business and there is no intention to interfere with business.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with business regarding the assertion of mistake of facts is established inasmuch as the occurrence of a situation that is likely to interfere with the business, and the actual occurrence of the interference result is not necessary. As such, the crime of interference with business is established insofar as the defendant’s situation where the victim’s business could be obstructed by blocking electricity,

According to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant changed the electricity fee to the victim, and the defective victim cannot be said to have not claimed the electricity fee before the Defendant, and if so, the defective victim said that the Defendant would block electricity.

In light of these circumstances, the victim's speech only appears to have been made emotionally in the process of dispute over the electricity fee between the defendant and the defendant, and it is difficult to see that the defendant consented to the measures of the short circuit, and it cannot be said that the defendant has mistakenly agreed to the victim. Thus, the victim's speech

In light of the dispute surrounding the electricity charges between the Defendant and the victim, even though the Defendant did not receive the electricity charge, it is recognized that the Defendant’s choice of a short time to receive the electricity charge exceeds the scope cited by social norms and illegality is also recognized.

Defendant’s assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.06.28 2017고정1242

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.11.06 2018나30754

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.07.19 2018고단316

-대전지방법원 2015.08.20 2015고정68

-의정부지방법원 2017.08.14 2017노232