(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.11.18 2019노2880 | 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) 광주지방법원 2020.11.18 2019노2880

업무방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant does not interfere with the work of the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s work may be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

1) The victim stated consistently at the investigation stage up to the original trial, that the defendant caused a cresh in his own glass and brought about a creshion due to the change of the victim’s glass, and that the above victim’s statement is concrete and reliable. 2) The victim’s statement is at the site of the crime by the person who carried out the replacement of the victim’s glass, but the F stated that the defendant was at the time of the crime, but the defendant was at the time of his own glass and was unable to bring about a cresh in his own glass, thereby making a report to the police. The statement is consistent with the victim’s statement.

3 H and I were police officers in receipt of F’s report, and H were sent out from the first floor to the 7th floor of the crime scene, since H arrived at the apartment site, which is a field, and the first floor of the original trial, and it was stated that the Defendant was carrying out the construction work, and I also stated that the first floor of the original trial led to the noise of women to the extent that the entire apartment is sound.

The statements of H and I are consistent with the statements of the victim and F that the victim and the victim interfered with the work of the victim by preventing the defendant from putting the defendant in mind and cutting the real contact with him.

B. It is difficult to view that the Defendant’s exercise of authority on the allegation of unfair sentencing is of importance.

The Defendant is an initial offender who has no criminal record.

However, the defendant has been working for a victim for a period of two hours.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2015.04.16 2013고단6357

-서울남부지방법원 2020.01.16 2018노2647

-창원지방법원 2013.10.10 2013고합193

-서울남부지방법원 2013.08.28 2012고정1996

-춘천지방법원 2015.09.24 2015고단629