(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.10.11 2018노959 | 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) 대전지방법원 2018.10.11 2018노959

업무방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the victim did not have any customer at the time of the instant case. Therefore, there was no job interfering with the Defendant’s act.

In addition, since one victim committed an intentional act and the defendant committed an act stated in the facts charged of this case, the defendant did not have any intention to interfere with business.

However, the lower court determined that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s work of managing the victim’s skin.

As such, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is sufficient if the establishment of a crime of interference with the business of the relevant legal doctrine does not require the result of interference with the business, and there is a risk of causing interference with the business (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1721, Jan. 17, 2008, etc.). 2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the court below, and the party in question, and the evidence duly adopted, the defendant's act,

It can not be seen that the defendant did not have any intention to obstruct the business.

Therefore, the defendant interfered with the victim's work by force.

The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

(1) The defendant has difficulty in disturbing the victim by taking a large sound so as to urge him/her to repay his/her debts, etc.

The defendant had been unable to continue to be disturbed while taking a bath despite the detention of customers who had been on board, and the defendant's act continued for about 20 minutes until the police who received the report arrives at the place.

(2) On-site CCTV images, on-site photographs, and H.

참조판례

-대법원 2008. 1. 17. 선고 2006도1721 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.08.26 2016노373

-대전지방법원 2018.10.04 2018노748

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.21 2017노4482

-창원지방법원 2021.02.04 2020노2114

-서울북부지방법원 2017.05.26 2016노2317