(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.04.02 2014노3916 | 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) 대전지방법원 2015.04.02 2014노3916

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts of the crime in the judgment below of the court below, the crime of intimidation against the victim J, the crime of causing property damage and the crime of interference with business, the crime of intimidation against the female employees without the victim's name, and the crime of interference with business against the victim's name constitutes a case where intimidation satisfies the elements of the crime of interference with business, and thus, the court below held that the crime of intimidation is in a substantive competition relationship.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it is recognized that the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim’s name-free box, the main owner of the business by force, by finding out his own goods for about 1 hour, and preventing the customers from entering the beauty room for about 20 minutes, in addition to threatening the victim J and destroying property within the KB operated by the victim J on August 2, 2013, by preventing them from entering the beauty room for about 20 minutes. On September 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the business of the beauty room by force; (b) on September 22, 2014, other than threatening the female employees of the victim’s name-free box prior to the victim’s improper box, at around 06:40 on September 22, 2014.

The defendant's intimidation against the victim J, damage to property and interference with business affairs, intimidation to female employees without the victim's name, and interference with business affairs of the victim's name and incompetence is different from those of the crime, such as the method and method of the crime, the content of the damage, etc., and even if the act was committed in close vicinity to the place and date of the crime, it cannot be said that the case where one act constitutes several crimes is an ordinary competition relations.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The Defendant’s crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing is a village resident.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.15 2014노3964

-인천지방법원 2014.03.28 2013노3913

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.16 2019노3349

-청주지방법원 제천지원 2014.01.23 2013고단907

-수원지방법원 2014.05.16 2014노1552