logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.18 2017노2215
업무방해등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) stated false facts, thereby obstructing the duties of the victim and impairing the honor of the victim.

Specifically, with respect to ① one set of the charges in the indictment No. 1, it is difficult to recognize that the injured person had distributed money or goods to the residents for an unlawful purpose even after compiling the evidence presented by the court below. ② With respect to two times per annum of the crime sight table in the indictment No. 1, the injured party voluntarily dismissed I, etc. against I’s will.

As to the facts charged Nos. 3 and 2 of the charge, it is difficult to find that the victim unfairly demanded a reduction of the proportion to LH. As such, the Defendant alleged a false fact.

must be viewed.

In addition, the illegality of Article 310 of the Criminal Code does not apply to the defendant's act that is not for the public interest.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant did not indicate false facts or Article 310 of the Criminal Act applies to the defendant's act.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was at the seat of the “C Housing Redevelopment Project resident representatives’ meeting” approved by the Nowon-gu Office on December 31, 2013 with respect to the C Housing Redevelopment Project in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, and competing with the victim D who was the other party, and D was elected to the Chairman, and thereafter, the Defendant was at the seat of the Plaintiff, who was at the seat of the Plaintiff, and then was at the seat of the Plaintiff, and was at the seat of the Plaintiff, who was at the seat of the Plaintiff and was at the seat of the Plaintiff, with the intention to implement the C Housing Redevelopment Project in accordance with the plan to implement the said D Housing Redevelopment Project, and the Defendant was at the seat of the Plaintiff.

arrow