beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, interference with business
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the owner of the I building in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and the victim J is a person who operates the entertainment tavern under the trade name of “K” by leasing the above building 201.
On December 9, 2010, the Defendant: (a) around 17:49, on the ground that the victim did not pay rent, management fee, etc., the Defendant: (b) provided electricity supply equipment of 201 power distribution teams of the electricity room located underground of the above building; (c) prevented the supply of electricity under 201 by an irregular method on December 22, 2010; and (d) prevented the supply of electricity under 201 by force until February 25, 201, thereby obstructing the victim’s operation of the main station.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that: (a) on December 9, 2010, the Defendant immediately recovered from the fact of the short circuit; (b) on December 22, 201, the fact of the electric short circuit from around 17:06 to February 25, 201 cannot be recognized; and (c) the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social rules.
C. (1) Determination is based on the evidence submitted by the prosecution and the following circumstances recognized thereby, namely, the victim was a relatively specific and consistent victim in the investigative agency and this court, and the victim was accused of the crime of interference with business on December 13, 2010, and was charged to the police on February 25, 201.
The Defendant stated that the insured signal content with respect to the above 201 was in the ADT closure situation room on December 9, 2010, and the insured signal content was in the AC LOSS status on December 22, 2010, and was in the situation of re-AC LOSS (electric or electric blocking) immediately after the PPOWON (electric supply) condition on December 22, 2010, and the Defendant asserted that he supplied electricity immediately after the end of December 9, 2010 by the prosecution, while the Defendant argued that he provided electricity immediately after the end of December 9, 2010, it was considered that “201 did not continue to pay management fees and cut off all, and that he did not operate a business (in the investigation record, 72 pages).”