logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.07.16 2018고정782
업무방해등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Where the defendant does not pay the above fine, one day shall be 10.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, at a place where it is unknown on March 2015, without going through the amendment of indictment, is recognized ex officio without going through the amendment of indictment to the extent that it seems that there is no concern about substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of the right of defense of the Defendant, the representative of “G”, who is the business partner who supplies to the Victim E

The phone calls made a false statement to “E will soon be the date of default.”

Accordingly, the defendant spreads false facts, thereby damaging the credibility of the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the statement of witness H in the third protocol of trial;

1. Relevant Article 313 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 313 of the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3400, Dec. 7, 2006) provides that a criminal intent in a crime of undermining credit does not necessarily necessarily require a fixed intention, but is sufficiently aware of the fact that there is a situation where the distribution of false facts or other deceptive means is likely to undermine the credit of others (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3400, Oct. 17, 2013). In order to establish a crime of undermining credit, the fact that the consequence of undermining credit is not necessary, and the risk of undermining credit arises (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8654, Oct. 17, 2013). The part of the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is not reasonable).

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On April 2013, the Defendant has found the head of the I of the above Bank Yangsan Branch, a main transaction bank of the Victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”), and “F is in the quality of gold currently being produced due to lack of technical capabilities.”

arrow