(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노3322

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노3322

일반교통방해

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances in light of the gists of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the Defendant participated in the 19th National Assembly on April 18, 2015 and occupied the road along with other participants in the assembly to interfere with the traffic of the road is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous.

A. In the instant case, the place of the first outdoor assembly was Seoul Squa, and there was no demonstration method or demonstration path (Evidence No. 24 of the evidence record). From 16:35 on the day of the instant case, the participants started to move along the two lanes to the third direction (Evidence No. 27 to 34 of the evidence record) and proceed to a failure to report (Evidence No. 27 to 34 of the evidence record). (b) The lower court had already been controlled by the traffic control of the police, installation of a side wall, etc. after the Defendant had been driven.

The Court ruled.

However, according to the evidence photographs, other participants, including the defendant, were passing along the road when they exceeded the reported scope, and when they start driving along the road (Evidence No. 28, the upper part of the evidence records, No. 30, 31, and the lower part of the surface of the road). It is obvious that the traffic of these vehicles has been obstructed by the acts of participants in assemblies occupying the road including the defendant.

(c)

At the time indicated in the facts charged, the defendant was occupying a lane with a flag (Evidence No. 126 to 128 of the evidence record). The defendant stated to the effect that he was unaware of the fact that the lane occupation is the activeness of the report, and at the same time, the police installed a wall.

In other words, it is mutually contradictory (Evidence No. 120).

The phrase that the police did not allow the police to take a step or hold a meeting in the face of the police is aware that it does not allow the police to take a step or hold a meeting.

In the end, the defendant recognizes that he is prohibited from assemblies and conducts.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.12 2016고정1240

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노3830

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.14 2018고합87

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.29 2015고정3631

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.25 2014고단6840 (1)