logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.23 2017노4387
일반교통방해
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant interfered with road traffic by significantly deviating from the scope of the original report and directly occupying a road without permission, despite having been well aware of the scope, conditions, etc. of the report of the above assembly at the resolution conference on August 28, 2015 (hereinafter “the assembly of this case”), and thus, the facts charged of this case are sufficiently recognized. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court, based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor, proved without reasonable doubt that the Defendant, with prior knowledge of the scope and conditions of the assembly of this case, had committed a direct act causing interference with traffic by significantly deviating from the scope of the assembly reported or participating in a serious violation of the conditions, etc., by leading and instigating other participants in the assembly of this case.

It is difficult to see otherwise, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and in light of the status of the defendant, the circumstances of participation, and the degree of involvement, etc., there was a case where the defendant and other participants in the assembly causing direct interference with the organizer of the assembly or

The defendant was acquitted on the ground that it is insufficient to view it.

In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts charged in the criminal trial has been borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads the judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010).

arrow