logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.04.13 2016고정1566
재물손괴등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant is a person who operates a clothing store in the “D shopping mall” located in Guri-si, Guri-si, and the victim F is a person who has the right to lease the D shopping mall by leasing it from the owners.

1. Around October 2015, the Defendant: (a) destroyed G stores in the said D shopping mall by replacing the locks of G stores to prevent any defect to be leased to others.

2. The Defendant interfered with the business of the victim by force, which prevents the victim from leasing G burial to another person by means of the same method as paragraph (1), thereby obstructing the leased business of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of a defendant in part in the third public trial records;

1. Statement made by the witness F in the third public trial records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of E contracts and props contracts;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for a crime;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the accused and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (related to the point of interference with business)

A. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserts that the instant building owner filed a suit against the victim regarding the shopping mall of this case on June 2015, and that the price prior to occupation was determined to be disposed of on July 2015, since the owner of the instant building had been subject to a disposition decision on the shopping mall of this case, the leased business of the victim is not worth protecting.

However, ‘business' subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to a business or business that is engaged in an occupation or continuously for a certain period and actually becomes the basis of social activities. It is worth protecting another person from invasion by illegal acts.

arrow