(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.26 2018노1080 | 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) 수원지방법원 2018.10.26 2018노1080

업무방해

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant's spouse G and the victim's statement, it can be found that the defendant intentionally obstructed the electricity of the elevator on the grounds that the damaged person failed to pay management expenses, etc.

However, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case.

2. The burden of proving the facts charged in a judgment in a criminal trial shall be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true.

Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the defendant as the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010). If the circumstances cited by the court below differ from the circumstances cited by the court below, which are acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below is justified to find the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

① The Defendant’s spouse G was unable to pay the D rent and management fee, and thus, the elevator was suspended once on February 2015 in the course of investigation.

It is doubtful that the Defendant did not commit the instant crime in that he/she made a statement to the purport that “” (15-16 pages of investigation records), and there is suspicion that the Defendant did not commit the instant crime.

② However, at the time, the Defendant couple did not match with D due to the payment of management expenses and the refund of deposit, and it was emotionally responding to D by all electricity, water, etc.

D At the time of the complainant’s statement, “as soon as April 5, 2015 and around 5, and finally, as September 5, 2015, electricity was set off and the elevator was prevented from being operated on the fourth floor.

In the initial investigation period of "(6 pages of investigation records)", the elevator was suspended on February 2015, not mentioning that the elevator was suspended on or around February 2015.

G In the process of the above investigation, "The second month shall be the end of the month."

참조판례

-대법원 2010. 11. 11. 선고 2010도9633 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.11.30 2018노4427

-수원지방법원 2018.11.16 2018노5166

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.27 2017고단4183

-수원지방법원 2018.11.02 2018노4088

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.24 2017고단3868