logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.04.03 2020고단264
업무방해등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 21, 2019, at around 01:35, the Defendant interfered with business, in front of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (a) boarded a taxi operated by the victim D while under the influence of alcohol; (b) laid the window of the back seat at a drinking time without notifying the victim of the destination; (c) laid the cab at the back seat; and (d) was asked by the victim for a lower demand from the victim, the Defendant rejected the victim’s demand for a lower demand by the victim about 30 minutes.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's taxi business by force.

2. At the time and place specified in paragraph (1), the Defendant: (a) returned home from F, a police officer of the Yongsan Police Station E box called the Yongsan Police Station, who received 112 reports to the effect that the Defendant “to interfere with the performance of official duties without gathering soil in the taxi.”

Upon receipt of the Gu, the head was sealed in F's face in the future, and F used F's face at one time by drinking the defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on handling 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Each written statement of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (Submission of victim D agreements);

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of each fine for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order interferes with another person's business and uses violence against a police officer who was in the course of performing his/her official duties, and thus is not good;

However, it appears that the victim of the crime of interference with business shows the attitude of reflecting the crime, the agreement with the victim of the crime of interference with business, and the one-time fine in 2007 has no record of punishment.

arrow