본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2013.05.09 2012노2336

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.


1. The meeting of the shopping mall meeting in which the victim E was elected as the representative of the reason for appeal is defective in the progress of the procedure, and the victim is an unauthorized person, and since such unauthorized person selected only the defendant's store that is not good for appraisal among many enterprises in arrears with management expenses, the act of cutting off the victim's store is not a "business" worth protecting under the Criminal Act since the act of cutting off the victim's store is not just, and therefore, the act of the defendant who resisted the act of cutting off the victim's act is not a "business" which is worth protecting under the Criminal Act. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. We examine the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as well.

Based on the evidence duly examined and adopted, the court below held that ① victim E is the sectional owner of a D shop which is an aggregate building, and the victim E was unable to properly manage the building, and the management rules was established by convening a partial shop owner around August 24, 2009, and the management rules were set up. Article 44(2) of the above management rules provides that "a management authority may take measures such as power failure, suspension, closure, prohibition of entry and departure of goods, and other necessary measures where the sectional owner or possessor, etc. fails to pay management expenses for at least two months." ② AD shopping mall meeting was transferred all of the management duties from the existing Jinsung Co., Ltd., a controlled entity around January 201, and conducted management work around that time, and the shop owner paid management expenses without raising any objection to the victim. ③ The defendant operated the coffee shop from around April 203, 2009 to operate the coffee shop, and the defendant paid management expenses from around 10, 2010 to the victim.