logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.15 2020노2361
업무방해
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant does not interfere with the victim's apartment management affairs by force as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the original judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s apartment management affairs by force, such as the record of criminal facts, is sufficiently recognized.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

The Defendant, at the police station, expressed that “the victim was able to take care of the victim, such as “the dynasium embling five million won or more” and “the dynasium embling the victim, fynasium, and fynasium.”

At the time of the instant crime, the victim expressed in the court below that the Defendant “at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant embezzled 5 million won or more,” and that “I embezzled 20 million won or more, as the representative,” and that “I embezzled 5 million won or more.” The victim stated to the effect that “I am the Defendant and I am to the district, even if the police officer was dispatched.”

In a letter of arrest of a flagrant offender prepared by a police officer called up at the time of the instant crime, stating that “The statement of the Defendant was made by the victim by embezzlement of public funds, making him/her find a sound, and threatening the police officer called up to what he/she was wrong, “I must do, I must do, you must do,” and take a bath.”

A witness E, which had been in the management office at the time of the crime of this case, was the victim so far as the defendant stated in the court of the court below that he would be able to do so, and the management office was in progress.

arrow