(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.01.18 2018고정1742

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) 수원지방법원 2019.01.18 2018고정1742

업무방해

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is the chairman of the Cemergency measure against B apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in the facts charged.

On June 29, 2018, from around 10:15 to 10:50, the Defendant entered into the D Construction Site 1 Section (hereinafter “instant construction site”) from 10:15 to 10:50 to the victim E (e.g., the head of the construction team) who is the victim E (e.g., the head of the construction team) who is unable to enter the construction site on the ground that the residents of apartment who live in him/her due to such construction works have directed the construction noise, thereby interfering with the supervision of the victim’s legal construction site by force by force, where he/she was unable to enter the construction site.

2. In light of the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant interfered with the victim’s business by force, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

① The construction site of this case is adjacent to the apartment complex of this case.

The occupants of the apartment of this case organized the Cemergency Countermeasures Committee to urge the construction workers of this case to prepare countermeasures against noise, vibration, dust dust, etc. that are generated at the construction site.

The defendant is a resident of the apartment house of this case and the chairperson of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee.

On May 10, 2018, the Defendant agreed with the head of the field director of the Fund in charge of the instant construction project, and agreed with the committee to conduct the blasting work after consultation with the committee for emergency countermeasures against apartment buildings in this case.

Nevertheless, the construction parties of this case conducted blasting work without consultation with the defendant on the day of this case, and the defendant seems to have sought to suspend blasting work at the construction site of this case.

② The instant case.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 상주지원 2015.06.09 2015고단37

-부산지방법원 2020.08.20 2018가단20312

-창원지방법원통영지원 2014.01.16 2011가합2902

-서울고등법원 2017.06.23 2015나30987

-서울중앙지방법원 2012.11.06 2012고정1099