logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.07.25 2014노496
업무방해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant: (a) lent a cartoon book to a part-time employee of the convenience store operated by the victim; and (b) requested the victim to return the cartoon book; (c) during the process, the victim took a bath and took a bath to the victim; and (d) the victim reported to the police.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, since the police was written off outside the door, and there was no interference with the victim's convenience store business by avoiding disturbance as stated in the facts charged in this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts stated in the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below: (a) the victim stated that "the defendant sent a cartoon book to the victim, took a bath before the entrance of the convenience store, and the customer who wants to enter the convenience store is unable to enter or leave the convenience store"; (b) G, the head office of the convenience store at the time of convenience store, stated that "the defendant testified that the customer who was at the convenience store was at the convenience store was at the convenience store, who was at the convenience store, was at the convenience store, was at the convenience store, and was at the convenience store, who was at the above convenience store, was at the convenience store," and stated that "H was at the above convenience store," and stated that "the defendant was at a disadvantage to the victim, and the victim was at the disadvantage of the victim," and that the witness also made a statement consistent with the victim's statement and statement, and that the defendant obstructed the victim's duty of convenience store.

arrow