logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.09.10 2015노687
업무방해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles regarding employee's refusal to sell alcohol constitutes an infringement on Defendant's human rights, and there was only no interference with Defendant's business, and only the act as stated in the judgment of the court below cannot be viewed as obstruction of business.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, and sentenced the Defendant guilty.

B. Even if the court below found the Defendant guilty of unfair sentencing, in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime by contingency, the Defendant’s mistake was divided and reflected, and the Defendant’s health and economic conditions are not good, etc., the sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, even though the defendant's employee made it difficult for the defendant to sell alcohol any more and more times, the defendant requested that the defendant continue to do so, and the defendant made a request for a defect. At the employee's request, the defendant did not leave the defendant and instead was shaking the table, and the defendant was sold so that the employee who did not want to refuse the employee's request would work against the defendant. The defendant was able to put the employee's own timber. Accordingly, the defendant was unable to respond to the employee's request, and the employee did not respond to the employee's loss, and even after the employee took the defendant's hand, the defendant continued to spawn and spawnd against the employee and spawnd against the employee.

Whether the crime of interference with business constitutes “competence” of the crime of interference with business shall be determined objectively in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the time and place of the crime, motive and purpose of the crime, number of persons, mode of force, type of work, type of the victim, status of the victim, etc.

arrow