(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.10.17 2018노2269

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) 의정부지방법원 2019.10.17 2018노2269

업무방해

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants of mistake of facts completed an assembly report outside the entrance of the memorial park in this case due to disputes concerning Emormo parks (hereinafter “Emormo parks in this case”).

The Defendants entered the memorial park office of this case to report that the Vice Minister F of the Management of the Memorial Park of this case marks the Defendants’ photographs with cell phones, and to resist them.

In the process of demanding the deletion of photographs, there was only a short time dispute with G, which is the head of the two main offices in the memorial Park.

Therefore, the Defendants did not have the intent to interfere with their duties, and the Defendants’ act cannot be deemed as a threat of force, and the Defendants’ act cannot be deemed as having caused the result or risk of interference with their duties.

In addition, Defendants’ act is within the scope of freedom of expression and is not illegal.

B. The court below’s decision on the unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) imposed on the Defendants is unreasonable on the grounds that it is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendants guilty on the charges that the Defendants interfered with the business of selling a charnel house in the victim G by force on the following grounds.

1) The Defendants were engaged in demonstration outside the office, and F, the Deputy Director of the Memorial Park Management Division, took photographs of banners, etc. under the direction of the victim G, the Defendants entered the office, and Defendant B said that Defendant B was able to take photographs, and deleted the pictures. 2) Although F had shown pictures to Defendant A and deleted the pictures, the Defendants did not go out of the office, and Defendant B took a bath to the victim in the office.

3 The Defendants appear to have participated in the demonstration while they were unable to recover money invested through C, which was performed as an agent for the sale of the memorial park in this case.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.07.26 2018고정344

-수원지방법원 2018.05.23 2017노8272

-부산지방법원동부지원 2020.09.11 2020고정351

-대전지방법원 2018.01.25 2017가합1022

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2019.11.25 2019고단3819