logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.05.25 2015노1400
업무방해
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the attorney’s written opinion submitted by Defendant D, after the submission period for the reasons for appeal, to the extent that it supplements the written reasons for appeal by Defendant D) did not have any criminal intent to obstruct the business, and the Defendants were merely erroneous in the construction of the apartment management rules, the election management regulations, and the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, and thus, the Defendants’ act was dismissed as being erroneous for misunderstanding that their act under Article 16 of the Criminal Act does not constitute a crime under the law and has justifiable grounds for misunderstanding, and thus, the court below found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The act of misunderstanding that one's own act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable if such misunderstanding is based on reasonable grounds; and

“The purpose of the aforementioned provision is that a person is not punishable if he/she knows that his/her act constitutes a crime but is not a crime permitted by the law in his/her particular case, and there is a justifiable reason for such a mistake. Whether there is a justifiable reason should be determined depending on whether he/she fails to recognize the illegality of his/her act as a result of failure to perform his/her duty, even though he/she could have sufficiently recognized the illegality of his/her act if he/she had done so with his/her intellectual ability and would have sufficiently been able to examine or inquire about the possibility of illegality of his/her act. The degree of efforts necessary for recognizing the illegality should be determined differently according to the circumstances of the act, individual identification ability of the actor, and social group to which the actor belongs.

arrow