logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2013.09.26 2013노694
업무방해
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. misunderstanding of facts1) Defendant A, B, and B did not participate in the conduct of interference with the affairs of the temporary teachers' meeting, they did not intend to engage in the conduct of interference with the affairs of the church, and they did not interfere with the establishment of the church, and G did not intend to enter the church, and G did not primarily attempt to enter the church. Since the church was Sundays, the above Defendants did not have a responsibility for the safety management of the church or work on duty, the court below found the above Defendants guilty of the whole period stated in the facts charged, including Sundays, even though they did not go through the church, and there was an error of misconception of facts. 2) Defendant C did not participate in the closure of the temporary teachers' meeting, and there was no specific evidence that the above Defendant committed the crime of interference with the affairs of the church, the court below convicted the above Defendants, and found them guilty.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (each fine of KRW 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We also examine the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts.

1) The Defendants asserted that they did not interfere with the business of the Fents Association of Victim G with the purport almost identical to the grounds for appeal, and denied the facts charged in this case. As to this, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ and the defense counsel’s assertion in detail on the grounds of the “reasons for the crime of oil” as stated in Section 3-5 of the lower judgment, and it is difficult to see that there was an error of misconception of facts even after comparing the lower judgment with the record and closely examining it. 2) Furthermore, the co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act jointly commit the crime.

arrow