(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.13 2016노2491

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 2016.10.13 2016노2491

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the facts charged in mistake of facts, the Defendant only withdrawn deposits and did not interfere with the duties of taxi operation and did not intend to interfere with the duties of taxi operation.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the lower court erred by misunderstanding facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court may recognize the fact that the Defendant continuously demanded the Defendant to move the taxi without paying the taxi fee and also obstructed the victim’s taxi operation by resisting the demand.

The criminal intent of the crime of interference with business is not necessarily deemed to have the intention of interfering with business or planned interference with business, but can be sufficiently recognized if he/she knows or anticipates the possibility or risk of interfering with another person's business due to his/her own act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4141, May 24, 2012). Since it is determined that the defendant sufficiently recognized that his/her own act may interfere with the victim's taxi operation, the criminal intent can be recognized.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① On March 28, 2016, around 23:30, the Defendant: (a) demanded the Defendant to take a taxi drivinged by the victim from the Goyang-si, Goyang-si to the Seoul Station; and (b) after having arrived at the destination, the Defendant again demanded to move to the Yongsan-si and the Military Station.

② After having arrived at the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Defendant withdrawn money and got out of the taxi and repeated movement to other nearby convenience points several times.

(3) The number of convenience points shall exceed two hours in the process of continuing to find them.

참조판례

-대법원 2012. 5. 24. 선고 2009도4141 판결

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2021.04.22 2020노2066

-청주지방법원 2015.09.03 2015노651

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.08.22 2013노584

-서울북부지방법원 2019.07.25 2019노586

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.10 2015노1747