(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.06.30 2017노265 | 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) 인천지방법원 2017.06.30 2017노265

업무방해등

Text

The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendants, who interfere with the business, directly carried out the E church and its affiliated free school meal facilities, and the F merely was the secondary traders appointed by the Defendants, the Defendants did not interfere with the business of others.

2) Since the locks of free school meal gates are owned by the Defendants, the locks owned by the Defendants are not damaged.

3) The Defendants did not transfer a free school meal facility to F, and merely appointed as the secondary trader, the Defendants entered the free school without permission of F.

Even if the crime of intrusion is not established, it is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 2 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants operated E church and its affiliated free school meal facilities, and the fact that the Defendants subleted the building to F on January 15, 2015 and delivered the house, etc., and thereafter, F alone operated the above church and its free school meal facilities.

According to the above facts, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendants interfere with F's operation of F's churches and free school meal facilities.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the damage of property, the fact that the locks installed in the gate of a meal facility was owned by F is sufficiently recognized (the witnessF of the lower court appears to have not testified as to whether he purchased the cut locks or not.

However, in accordance with the Defendants’ assertion, if the Defendants were to possess the locks and currently possess the above free meal facility and appoint F as the assistant, the Defendants should have the key to the locks.

However, there is a problem.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.01.13 2016고정1489

-서울남부지방법원 2017.05.31 2017고정9

-부산지방법원 2012.12.13 2012노2919

-대구지방법원 2017.05.25 2016고단4263

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.11.29 2018고단617