(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.07.03 2014노129 | 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) 광주지방법원 2014.07.03 2014노129

업무방해

Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) In light of the fact that there is no provision explicitly prohibiting online elections in party constitution and party constitution of a party Y party, the Defendants did not have the intention of deceptive scheme because there was no awareness as to whether evacuation voting is prohibited.

B) It is difficult to view that the Defendants’ act causes damage to the fairness and appropriateness of the Y party’s competition management business. C) The Defendants’ act does not include the Y party’s person in charge of the Y party’s business, but rather falling under awareness, misunderstanding, etc. due to his insufficient examination and technical limits, there is no causation. The issue of whether the voting right holder exercises his right to vote directly is not within the scope of the competition management business of the Y party, and thus, it does not constitute a deceptive scheme. 2) The lower court’s punishment (Defendant A: 3 years of suspended execution in 1 and 6 months of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended execution in 1 year and 6 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence in 6 months of imprisonment, 2 million won of fine: Defendant E: fine of KRW 1 million, Defendant F: KRW 500,000, Defendant G, and 500,000 won of fine).

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means in the context of the crime of interference with business by applying the applicable legal doctrine to the Defendants’ assertion on the mistake of facts, the term “defensive means” means that an actor misleads the other party as to his or her mistake, dismissal, or site in order to achieve the purpose of the act, and the establishment of the crime of interference with business means that the crime of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of the result of interference with business, and is sufficient to cause the risk of interference with business, and the crime of interference with business is established even in cases where the propriety or fairness of business is hindered, not by itself, even if the performance of duties is interfered

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2014.07.03 2014노120

-광주지방법원 2015.04.14 2014노1368

-광주지방법원 2015.04.14 2014노1866

-수원지방법원 2015.12.04 2014노2180 (1)

-인천지방법원 2014.08.29 2014노1084