logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.05.12 2016고정2678
업무방해등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[2016 High Court Decision 2678]

1. On November 17, 2016, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s legitimate counseling services by force, such as demanding the return of money to the victim E (n, 34 years of age) on the ground that the unfair fees were claimed within the D shop located in Jung-gu Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, and thus obstructing the Defendant’s business.

2. The Defendant assaulted the victim’s right shoulder by drinking on three occasions on the ground that the victim attempted to go back again from the latter part of the foregoing paragraph (1) to the above store at the time of a day, on the ground that the victim prevented him from entering the above store.

[2017 High Court Decision 83]

1. 업무 방해 피고인은 2016. 11. 7. 09:40 경 대구 중구 C에 있는 피해자 F(36 세) 이 점장으로 근무 중인 D 1 층 사무실에서 평소 피고인이 사용하는 통신사 KT 인 휴대 전화기의 부가서비스 가입으로 인해 요금이 많이 나온다는 이유로 "야 이, 씨 발 년 놈들 아, 내 돈 72,000원 내놔 라, 썅 년, 개년, 씨발 년, 개 같은 놈, 씨 발 놈, 개새끼 "라고 욕설을 하고 가지고 있던 지팡이를 휘두르는 등 약 1시간 동안 소란을 피워 들어온 손님들이 나가게 하는 등 피해자가 근무하는 KT의 민원업무를 방해하였다.

2. In around 09:40 on November 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) was a victim who was reported and dispatched to the scene after having received a report at the same place as the Defendant’s act referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article at the same time as the Defendant’s act referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article; (b) the police officer of the Jung-gu Police Station G District belonging to the Jung-gu Police Station G District; and (c) the police officer belonging to the same police station I (51) who was affiliated with the same police station; and (d) during the course in which many employees, such as D StaffF, and civil petitioners are heard.

The victims were openly insultd by openly obsculous obsculous obsculities, Macule, Macule, Police Officers' Macule.

Summary of Evidence

[2016 High Court Decision 2678]

1. The defendant's legal statement (as at the third public trial date);

1. Statement of the police statement to E:

arrow