beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On January 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on January 12, 2015, at the Defendant’s residence located in the Chungcheongnam-gun E; (b) on January 12, 201, the Victim F, who is an artist,
I think the fact that the victim's personal exhibition scheduled in G had not been cancelled for plagiarism, but the same year from January 26, 2015.
3. Until 12. There was an expected personal exhibition of the injured party;
H Liability Carter I: “I was scheduled in the coming two-month G
The F private sector was decided to cancel the F private sector on January 7 due to the reasons related to plagiarism.
“ e-mail sent.”
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the opening of the art exhibition of the victim by fraudulent means.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each legal statement of the witness J and F;
1. Each investigation report (the sequence 4, 13 in the list of evidence) and accompanying documents;
1. Application of each e-mail statute
1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act and Articles 314 (1) and 313 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime;
2. Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.
3. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
1. On January 12, 2015, the Defendant sent the victim’s G exhibition was cancelled on the ground of plagiarism to H’s responsible documentary efforts, and on the other hand, the victim’s G exhibition was not revoked on the ground of plagiarism.
However, the Defendant sent the above e-mail to I based on the content that he had worked in G at the time. Therefore, the Defendant did not know that the content was false.
Therefore, the defendant does not interfere with the opening of the victim's exhibition by deceptive means.
2. Determination:
A. It is sufficient that, in the establishment of a obstruction of business of the relevant legal doctrine, the result of the obstruction of business should not be actually generated, and that there is a risk of causing the result of the obstruction of business (Supreme Court).