logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.06 2014노4374
일반교통방해등
Text

The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and F shall be reversed.

Defendant

The sentence for A and F shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts charged are not specified.

B. Defendant A and E did not have participated in the demonstration, and Defendant D moved to India only according to the demonstration team, and Defendant B and F played a role of maintaining order to ensure the peaceful demonstration at the site where the demonstration was conducted by putting in uniform the reserve force.

Defendants did not engage in any act of intentional or direct interference with traffic.

If traffic obstruction occurred, it is caused by the police to block the road.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court sentenced the Defendants to the same punishment as recognizing the Defendants guilty of both the following facts: (a) the participation in the night demonstration and the general traffic obstruction.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the punishment of the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the purport of the law that allows the court to specify the facts charged by specifying the date, time, place, and method of the crime in the facts charged is to limit the scope of the trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. Thus, the facts charged are sufficient if the facts constituting the crime can be stated differently from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do2934, Nov. 12, 199). Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the facts charged in this case is specified to limit the court to the object of the trial against the defendant, and to ensure that it does not interfere with the exercise of the defense right by clarifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. 2) Furthermore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendants occupy the lane from around 00:00 on Jun. 1, 2008 to 01:30 on the same day.

arrow