(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.09 2016노532

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.09 2016노532

업무방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The Defendant did not interfere with 27 minutes of labor by force (misunderstanding of the legal principle, misunderstanding of the legal principle). The Defendant did not have the disturbance for 27 minutes of labor, and only sent the noise only once after the noise. Such an act of the Defendant does not constitute “power” in the crime of interference with business.

B. The Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act (misunderstanding of the legal doctrine) was denied when demanding an interview with a person in charge of the bank’s side while demanding an interview with the bank, and the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion that there was no interference with 27 minutes of work due to force, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant's act of disturbance as stated in the facts charged and the act of disturbance constitutes the force as stated in the crime of interference with work.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1) The victim C consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that “Although the Defendant requested several times to suspend the act of disturbance, the Defendant took a large volume of voice from the street to the Defendant, “A bank is a company causing damage, such as Japan,” and 20 minutes or more, the victim C made a noise to the effect that “The Defendant was a company causing damage, such as Japan.”

2) According to CCTV photographs taken at the time of the instant case, it is confirmed that the Defendant was at the site of the instant case from 15:14 to 15:43 on the day of the instant case.

3) Even before the instant case, the Defendant conducted one demonstration in front of the instant building. The Defendant visited several times to ask the president or a person in charge to hold several interviews, and the victim was frequently reported to the police (the victim’s statement in the lower court).

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.05.10 2018고단153

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.24 2017노2884

-서울서부지방법원 2018.10.25 2018노633

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.02 2017노4261

-서울동부지방법원 2016.03.18 2015노1495