beta
Text
The defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. On March 31, 2016, the Defendant refused the victim’s demand that the victim would not take part in the H office where the victim G (V, 46 years old) works in the Won-si F on March 31, 2016, on the ground that the victim did not take part in the contact with the Defendant, and that the victim would not take part in the contact with the Defendant.
Austria, as we see, Hab, as we see.
The victim interfered with the victim's duty of customer counseling by force of about 40 minutes, such as "A sound, careing the victim, careing the victim, etc. on the side of the victim, making the customer who was trying to receive counseling by avoiding disturbance, etc.
2. Determination
A. The “power of force” of the crime of interference with the relevant legal doctrine refers to all force that may lead to the suppression and confusion of a person’s free will, without asking whether it is tangible or intangible, and in reality, the victim’s intent of freedom is not to be threatened. However, it should be sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc.
The determination of such force ought to be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and time and place of a crime, motive, purpose, number of persons to commit the crime, mode of force, type of work, and the status of the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009, etc.). (B) According to the records in this case, the Defendant refused the demand of the victim G, who was in a relationship with the victim, was found in the H office where the victim G was working for the victim who did not contact with the Defendant but did not contact with the Defendant, was about about about about about about 15 minutes and about 20 minutes, and the victim’s request for a change in the victim’s Blue.
"The words, etc. and the fact of enhancing words shall be recognized."
In light of the circumstances revealed below in the records of this case, there is a reasonable doubt that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone constitutes the defendant's above behavior sufficient to suppress the victim's will of freedom.