(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2016.06.17 2015고정1057

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) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2016.06.17 2015고정1057

업무방해등

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The victim C of the instant charges was the head of the Gyeonggi-do D Urban Development Project Association, and the defendant was placed on deposit with the court for the factory and warehouse owned by the defendant, and won the lawsuit for the delivery of real estate, and forced removal after winning the lawsuit for the provisional disposition, and the defendant appealed the right of compulsory removal, not on the side of the association, but on the side of the constructor.

A. On January 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) demanded the removal of the D Urban Development Project Association office located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si to demand compensation; (b) the victim was not entitled to compensation; and (c) the Defendant, who was sitting in the D Urban Development Association office, obstructed the victim’s duty of inspection of coffee, which occurred in the paper, and interfered with the victim’s duty of inspection by force.

B. The Defendant refused to leave. A. The Defendant notified the victim of the disturbance at the same time and at the same place as above, but did not comply with the request for eviction by the victim and the Defendant’s non-compliance with the request by the police officer who forced the victim and the non-compliance with the request.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they did not interfere with the business, and they did not request the victim to leave the court because they did not have any fact that they had made a public inspection of coffee balance, and thus, they refused to leave the court.

Even if the refusal to leave does not constitute a crime of refusal.

3. Determination

가. 업무 방해의 점 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면 당시 피고인의 행위로 인하여 커피가 공람 서류인 공람 자 명부에 튄 사실은 인정된다.

In addition, this paper examines whether the defendant's scam, which caused coffee, was in the documents available for public inspection and interfered with the public perusal of the victim by force.

The evidence of this is the C’s statement and G’s statement and photographs (Evidence Record 53-55 pages).

C The defendant is entitled to coffee.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.01.26 2016노2562

-대구지방법원 2016.07.06 2015노2615

-대구지방법원 2016.04.01 2015노5307

-서울북부지방법원 2018.11.09 2018고정1155

-서울서부지방법원 2017.07.13 2017노585