logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.03.15 2012노1176
업무방해
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was a nurse and trial expenses due to internal police test costs, but there was no interference with his duties as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Determination

A. On March 2, 2011, the Defendant: (a) received an examination from the E-won operated by the victim D, who had been in the register of the victim No. 401 of the building C, Kimhae-si, and obstructed the victim’s hospital’s duties by force over two hours by force, by means of force, the Defendant: (b) was at least 15:00 to 17:00 of the same day, when there was a conflict with the nurse’s opinions with the nurse at the time of the payment of inspection expenses; (c) the Defendant: (d) was in the process of pushing down the bovine spongiforms in his place; (d) was tightly sprinked; and (e) was sprinked; and (e) was sprinked in the air; and (e) was sprink

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

C. (1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court in the original instance and the trial court, as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, each of the above evidence is difficult to believe as it is, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(A) On the 49th page of the record of evidence submitted by the victim at the time of the police investigation (Evidence No. 49), the statement that “the defendant was seated on the pelvis computer, was pushed down, was pushed down, was pushed down, and the waiting room was obstructed by the patient waiting in the waiting room (G, G’s guardian, and H).” However, H was examined by the court of first instance at around 9:45 minutes before the date of the instant case.

arrow