(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.04.22 2015노243 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2016.04.22 2015노243

업무방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the removal of goods at the front of the entrance of the warehouse of this case was done, but only the goods owned by the defendant were moved, and the victim did not have the right to use the warehouse of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim's construction material sales business.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of interference with business or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of interference with business, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged based on the evidence in its holding.

2) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court’s judgment, the lower court fully recognized the fact that the Defendant could interfere with the victim’s construction material sales business by force by: (a) preventing the Defendant from transferring the victim’s goods in the instant commercial building to front of the entrance; and (b) preventing the Defendant from selling the materials by means of opening the warehouse door.

(1) The injured party consistently from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, and consistently, “The injured party was unable to open the entrance by piling up in front of the entrance the articles kept in the warehouse for the building business.”

A witness I and G consistently made a statement from an investigative agency to the court of original trial, and consistently made it impossible for the Defendant to open the entrance in front of the warehouse entrance by piling up all articles, such as a bridge in the warehouse, and the articles in the warehouse are agricultural materials and construction materials kept by C for business purposes.

“The statement is consistent with the victim’s statement (Evidence 5, 6, 12, 13). I has the intention to do so.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.07.13 2017고단1367

-대구지방법원 영덕지원 2015.01.07 2014고정72

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.02.23 2016고단3751

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2017.03.14 2016고정524

-광주지방법원 2015.08.18 2014고단423