logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.11.23 2016고정1105
업무방해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is prohibited.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. A around April 23, 2016, Defendant A interfered with the legitimate duties of the victim by way of: (a) the victim E around Gwangju-si’s neighboring victim E parked the Flus vehicle in its operation at the construction site where it is buried as a sewage pipe and preventing the construction vehicle from entering the construction site.

2. Defendant B, around April 23, 2016, at around 15:00, obstructed the legitimate duties of the victim in such a way that: (a) a person related to the construction work and a person related to the construction work, who is the same at the said place, are protruding; (b) a person who installed the construction work, prevents a vehicle from entering the site where the construction is in progress with GK5 vehicles.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements (such as parking)

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Reporting on occurrence of a disaster;

1. Data (the details of usage fees for State property);

1. On-site photograph defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1. Judgment on whether the elements of a crime are satisfied

A. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted by the Defendants merely set up a motor vehicle at the site of the instant case because they did not move the motor vehicle to another place due to the victim’s construction vehicle, and they did not have any intention to interfere with business. Furthermore, Defendant A’s vehicle was installed.

Even if there are two meters empty spaces, it is argued that there was no result of interference with business because the victim's vehicle could sufficiently pass.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, namely, ① the parking of vehicles by Defendant A several times on the day of the instant case, and the moving of the vehicle after the mobilization of the police, ② the Defendants cannot find any particular reason to park on the Han-do road, not on the dwelling area of Defendant A, ③ the time parked by Defendant B, ④ the time parked by Defendant A, ④ the police dispatched to the scene, ⑤ the size of the construction vehicle in the on-site photograph, ⑤ the size of the construction vehicle in the on-site photograph, and the size of the site photograph and the vacant space.

arrow