logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.05 2014고정616
업무방해등
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 4,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the manager of the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Building, the defendant B is the spouse of the defendant, and the victim H is operating the Iske golf on the second floor below the G Building.

[2014 High Court Decision 616]

1. Obstruction of the Defendants’ business

A. At around 17:00 on April 16, 2013, the Defendants conspired to file a lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment against the G building management body, etc., the victim was represented by Defendant A, on the ground that the victim filed a lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment against the management expenses of the building from the G building management body, etc., on or around March 2011, Defendant A obstructed the operation of the victim’s screen golf course by force by avoiding disturbance, such as passing away both horses, and passing away on the table, and passing off on the table, “Isc golf floor,” and Defendant B interfered with the operation of the victim’s screen golf course by force.

Since basic facts are identical in relation to the details of the dispute and the form of obstruction of business, and there is no substantial disadvantage to the defendants' exercise of their right to defense, it is recognized as above without any changes in indictment.

B. At around 19:00 on June 3, 2013, the Defendants conspired with the victim in the Jung-gu Seoul Jung-guJ, Seoul, and at the L1st L1 operated by K, Defendant B interfered with the victim’s new operation by force by force by avoiding disturbance, such as putting the victim’s talk with K anywhere to H.

Since basic facts are identical in relation to the form of interference with business and it is judged that there is no substantial disadvantage in the defendants' exercise of their defense rights, it is recognized as above without any changes in indictment.

2. On April 22, 2013, Defendant A’s interference with Defendant A’s duties: (a) on the ground that the victim installed a theft prevention device in the Iskin golf on the ground that the victim installed the theft prevention device; (b) the victim’s disturbance, she was installed as her mar, cut off as soon as possible; and (c) the noise between 10 minutes in large interest, by force, is obstructed.

arrow