logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.19 2017노89
일반교통방해등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendants (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of the law, and Sentencing) participated in an open meeting on the date of each of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants did not refuse to comply with the lawful dispersion order or not interfere with general traffic, and there is no relation between the Defendants’ act and the result of traffic obstruction.

2) The Defendants’ act of misunderstanding the law constitutes legitimate acts and constitutes grounds for excluding illegality.

3) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court (the fine of 2 million won for each of the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

B. Each of the above types of punishment, which the first instance trial of the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) renders against the Defendants, is too unhutiled.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on April 11, 2015, the Defendants’ assembly held on the said date was remarkably off the reported scope, and the police ordered the dispersion on several occasions on the north side of the luminous plaza or the south side. Nevertheless, the Defendants continued the demonstration without complying with the dispersion order with other participants in the assembly, and the Defendants were arrested on the spot by drilling the maintenance line and demonstration at the Northwest of the luminous square, and in light of these circumstances, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendants interfered with traffic by occupying the road in collusion with other participants at the above time and place without complying with the dispersion order.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court with respect to the remaining crimes of Defendant B, the Defendant not only participated in the Unreported Progressive Progressive Report on April 18, 2015, but also replaced the police with the police in the vicinity of the police barriers as in the luminous language, and even around May 1, 2015.

arrow