logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.04.24 2014노1859
업무방해
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the punishment of fine of KRW 4,00,00, which the court below rendered, is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the fact that the defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution; (b) the fact that the defendant was punished as an act of violence up to 23 times; and (c) the victim expressed his intent that the defendant would not want the punishment for an act of violence; and (d) there was

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime of interference with business on August 8, 2014, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing in the instant case, the sentence of the lower court seems to be unfair, considering the following factors: (b) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on March 27, 2014 due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Injury) by the Seoul Southern District Court on Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (Habitual Injury) at the Seoul Southern District Court on March 27, 2014, which became final and conclusive on April 4, 2014; and (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime of interference with business.

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision is rendered

Criminal facts

The summary of the defendant's criminal facts and the summary of the evidence is the same as that of each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

arrow