(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.06.27 2013노3252 | 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) 대구지방법원 2014.06.27 2013노3252

업무방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not take a bath or take a disturbance at the time and place as indicated in the judgment of the court below.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. In full view of the following facts recognized by the lower court and the lower court as lawful investigation, it can be recognized that the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim at the time and place of the lower court’s ruling, as stated in its reasoning.

D stated at the date and time and place of the decision of the court below that the defendant pushed the shoulder part of D with the defendant's left shoulder part of D, folded the shoulder part of D with the left part part of elbow elbow, the defendant boomed himself and her boomed, the defendant was able to take a bath and her disturbance, together with the police officer, and even after the Epf house was put into the Ep house, the defendant stated that "I cannot do so more than 30 years," and that "I do not do so. I do not do so," and that I expressed that I took a serious bath to home guests."

B. At the time when a slope G, who was reported to the scene of the judgment of the court below, was sent to the Epp house, stated that the defendant interested, franchised, franchised, franchised, franchised, franchised, and franchised, and that the defendant was franchising, and the defendant continued to franchising, "the franchis" in the form of "the franchis", and that the defendant returned to G when franchis almost franchising into the field of the judgment of the court below, "it was impossible to conduct the business" to go back to the underground side, and that he continued to go back to the ground, and that the investigation report on the case, such as interference with the business, was written to this purport.

(37 pages of investigation records) Therefore, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.12.12 2018노2789

-수원지방법원 2020.10.15 2020노3734

-서울북부지방법원 2015.12.17 2015노1222

-서울북부지방법원 2016.06.30 2016노692

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2020.04.23 2020고단601