(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.04.18 2012노2434 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2013.04.18 2012노2434

업무방해등

Text

The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B, C, D, and E shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

B and C shall be punished by 500,000,000.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendants asserted as to mistake of facts or obstruction of business by misapprehending the legal principles and the unreasonable privatization of H-affiliated I Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as the “Research Institute”) and the indecent act against female employees, etc., within the scope of a peaceful means to resist the following: (a) there was no intention to interfere with the duties of the Director; (b) there was no intention to interfere with the duties of the Director; and (c) there was no risk of objectively interfering with the duties of the Director; and (d) even if the duties of the Director were performed normally, the lower court convicted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles

The argument on the obstruction of performance of official duties is that ① Defendant A did not have any string of Q as described in this part of the facts charged, ② Defendant B, C, and E merely took place at the place of crime indicated in this part of the facts charged, and thus it cannot be evaluated as an assault of the crime of obstruction of official duties. ③ Although Defendant D was not at the place of crime listed in paragraph (2) of the facts charged in the judgment below, the court below convicted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentencing of the lower court on the unfair sentencing (Defendant A, B, and C: each fine of 700,000 won, Defendant D, and E): each fine of 500,000 won is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the establishment of the crime of interference with business in determining the assertion of mistake of facts or interference with business by the misapprehension of legal principles, the result of interference with business is not required to actually occur, and it is sufficient to cause the risk of interference with business, and the ‘influence of business' includes not only interference with the execution of business itself but also hindering the management of business widely.

Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3231 Delivered on March 29, 2002

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2013.10.10 2013노463

-서울동부지방법원 2021.04.16 2020노1050

-수원지방법원 2015.10.23 2015노2140

-서울남부지방법원 2015.06.04 2015노290

-춘천지방법원 2020.09.16 2019노648