(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.07.28 2015노1529 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2015.07.28 2015노1529

업무방해

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of interference with business by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is not required to have a result of interference with business, and is likely to cause a result of interference with business.

However, as the defendant brought a truck, chain pipe, etc. on the route to which he enters, the victim stated that the working hours have increased, and the above sckes have a risk of causing civil or criminal disadvantages by impairing another's land in the course of moving into another route through ditches. Since the paths between sckes are not the length used as the original passage, there was a sufficient risk of causing inconvenience in moving or causing accidents.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of interference with business or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of interference with business, which acquitted the Defendant on April 14, 2014 among the facts charged in the instant case.

B. In light of the fact that the crime of this case’s crime is not good and that the degree of damage is not somewhat weak, the lower court’s sentence imposing a fine of KRW 1,00,000 is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The summary of the charge of interference with the business of April 14, 2014 among the facts charged in the instant case was: (a) around 18:00 on April 14, 2014, the Defendant: (b) stored the truck owned by the Defendant and the pipe and hackers in and around the vicinity of the truck owned by the Defendant in order to perform farmland rearrangement work in the Seosung-si C (hereinafter “instant land”); and (c) obstructed the Defendant from performing farmland rearrangement work.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate agricultural business of the victim by force.

(2) The lower court determined that the Defendant’s truck owned while entering the said land through F’s land as a boomer, for whom the victim’s request was made.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.02.11 2014고정2735

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2014.03.24 2013고정480

-의정부지방법원 2013.09.17 2012고단2847

-제주지방법원 2012.10.11 2012고단734

-대전지방법원 2015.01.15 2014노696