(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.12.01 2017노767 | 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) 전주지방법원 2017.12.01 2017노767

권리행사방해

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is owned by company E with limited liability (hereinafter “E”), and the Defendant is merely an employee, not a representative agency, and the Defendant’s act of taking the instant excavation machine does not constitute “the taking of his own property”.

After the victim left the ground of this case, M and N have driven and moved the searcher of this case by using the key of another searcher, and thus, M and N actually occupied the searcher of this case.

Defendant 1, as above, had occupied the cater of this case.

Since the mining ground of this case was brought with the consent of M and N, it does not constitute a interference with the exercise of rights.

The defendant's taking of the so-called so-called "the defendant's taking of the so-called so-called the so-called "the party's taking of the so-called the so-called "the party's taking of the so-called" is not illegal since the defendant'

B. The Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, or M arbitrarily replaced the key to the instant log without the victim’s permission. As such, it is apparent that it is an occupation of a person who is not entitled to possess, and the status of “the possessor” cannot be acknowledged. Thus, the act of bringing the instant log to the instant log continues to be in possession of the victim, regardless of the replacement of key, and thus, it constitutes a crime of interference with the exercise of rights.

(c)

The court below's unfair argument on the sentencing of the prosecutor is unfair because the punishment of the court below (3 million won) is too unhued.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who serves as a director in charge of equipment in E located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

E The representative F shall make 36 monthly payments (36 x 2,615,300 won) of the Victim G and Habags H around October 15, 2014.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.09.27 2016노2547

-의정부지방법원 2016.04.29 2016노551

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.18 2016노73

-부산지방법원 2017.06.16 2016노4713

-서울남부지방법원 2021.01.12 2020노1820