logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.06.07 2016노709
업무방해등
Text

The judgment below

Defendant B, C, G, H, I, and J are reversed.

Defendant

Punishment B, C, G, H, and I.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (20, 120, 157, 2016, 2016, 2016, 157, 2016, 2016, and 157, of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below against Defendant E) 1) The statements of the victim witness N (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) who corresponds to the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) against the Defendants are subject to a disposition of non-suspect or suspension of indictment against the majority of the victims among the members designated by the victim, and all the accused members are the victims, and they are difficult to believe this in light of the fact that some of the victim’s statements are inconsistent with the video.

B) The victim is the person holding the right to hold the position meeting as a pastor of M church assembly. Although there was suspicion of corruption, the victim did not hold the position meeting, which is the only means to clarify the corruption of the victim without disregarding the request of the members. The act of obstructing the worship of this case is the only method to force the victim to convene the position meeting. The victim's act of obstructing the worship of this case was issued with an order of re-investigation in relation to the crime of embezzlement of the victim, etc., which was issued with no suspicion, and the case was sentenced to the prior judgment of the victim in relation to the crime of embezzlement of the victim, the act of obstructing the worship in this case is justifiable, and the motive or purpose of the act is reasonable, and the means or method is adequate, and it is sufficient to balance the legal interests and interests of the protected interest and infringement. It is a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms.

2) On April 12, 2015, the images taken by Defendant A have only a face to enter the M church via the entrance, inasmuch as they have only a door.

arrow