logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.10.31 2019고정564
업무방해
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 5,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the representative director of C, and the defendant B is the person who is employed for one-time by the defendant.

The Defendants conspired, from October 9, 2018 to October 16:20, 2018, the victim E, a company located in Daegu Northern-gu, was undertaking the removal work under a subcontract between the victim E, a company located in Daegu North-gu, from October 16:20 to October 20, 2018; 82.83. In the F apartment reconstruction site, the Defendants interfered with the victim’s work progress by force by preventing the progress of the removal work from opening the entrance of the construction site at the construction site, or by preventing the progress of the removal work from being carried out by installing a G vehicle at the entrance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Some statements concerning the Defendants in the police interrogation protocol

1. Each police statement made to H and I;

1. Each investigation report (on-site CCTV image cutting and review of suspicion of interference with business), and the defense counsel of the accused in the judgment is valid until now when the contract for removal services entered into by the defendant C with the F Apartment Rearrangement Association in 2008 is valid, and C has the right to dispose of construction waste in relation to the removal services contract. Since the Defendants merely carried out acts such as preventing entry of construction vehicles in order to preserve their rights, the Defendants asserted that the act constitutes self-defense, legitimate act, or self-help, but the issue of whether C has the right to dispose of construction waste in the removal site can only be finally identified through a civil lawsuit, and as long as the victim actually carried out the removal services contract and the Defendants committed an act to prevent entry of construction vehicles, the act may interfere with the victim's work.

arrow