(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2012.10.18 2012노795

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) 서울남부지방법원 2012.10.18 2012노795

업무방해

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was only assigned 100 or more services around the instant construction site and did not enter the said construction site on behalf of others.

B. Legal principles 1) The victims’ work is not a duty of protection under the Criminal Act (hereinafter “first assertion”).

(2) The Defendant’s act of placing 100 service visitors around the instant construction site does not constitute a threat of force under the crime of interference with business (hereinafter “second assertion”). 3) The Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act (abundance of the purport of the Defendant’s assertion, but the Defendant’s act is justifiable, and thus, the Defendant’s act is determined by good faith.

hereinafter referred to as “third assertion”

2. 2. Before determining the Defendant’s assertion of ex officio, the record of the instant case reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on July 19, 2012 by the Seoul Northern District Court on the grounds of the crime of interference with business, etc. on July 19, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 27, 2012. As such, in the crime of interference with business, etc. committed at the time of the final and conclusive judgment and the original judgment on the crime of interference with business, etc. under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a sentence shall be determined after considering the case of concurrent judgment and equity in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and considering

Nevertheless, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant had a 100 order of service at the construction site of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle, No. 1.1.

참조조문

-형법

-형법 제39조 제1항

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.08.12 2018고정746

-전주지방법원 2019.06.05 2019노387

-대전지방법원 2016.12.22 2016노2028

-부산지방법원 2013.07.04 2013고정90

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.06.03 2016고단355