Do 2012 10864 (a) Interference with business

(b) interference with general traffic;

A

Defendant and Prosecutor

Law Firm B (Attorney in Charge C)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012No 1451 decided August 16, 2012

February 13, 2014

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by a public prosecutor

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of obstructing business operations is as follows; and “Defendant” from February 8, 2010 to February 2010.

6. By around 24. Around February 10, 2010, Defendant’s tank croke, in writing that slanders E, etc. on the road adjacent to its head office in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, has been illegally parked for a long time, and Defendant’s croke, which is marked in front of the driver’s seat so that it can be seen through a glass window in front of the said tank croud, “Doma, which is sticked up to 15cm in length and 10cm in knife (10cm in knife)”, sent the same attitude to allow Defendant to use it if he knows upon Defendant’s request, and “from February 10, 2010 to June 3, 2010, 200 or 30.

Meanwhile, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the original court and the evidence duly adopted by the court below, Defendant 8, August 2010

13. The Seoul Central District Court issued a summary order of KRW 100,000 to a fine for the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, which became final and conclusive on October 13, 2010. The crime of the above summary order was established under the above summary order. "The defendant requests an interview of E Chairperson from the roads adjacent to his head office to 18:00 on June 3, 2010, and Doma and kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn k kn k'.

B. The identity of the facts charged or the facts charged ought to be determined on the basis of the legal function that is identical to the facts and based on the relationship between the Defendant’s act and the social facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2080, Mar. 22, 1994; 2009Do12249, Apr. 28, 201).

On the other hand, if a summary order concerning part of the crime in the relation of the blanket crime becomes final and conclusive, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered for the previous crime in accordance with the criteria of issuing the summary order, on the basis of B at the time of issuing the summary order (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1318 delivered on August 9, 194, etc.).

C. The judgment of the court below is identical in relation to the social facts that form the basis for the order, and thus, the part of the court below interfered with the business by demanding an interview between the chairperson on June 3, 2010 and 30 minutes of the crime committed in the first instance judgment among the facts of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, which became final and conclusive and the facts of the prosecution of this case committed before the order was issued, and the facts of interference with the business of the indictment of this case, which were stated in the 9th judgment of the court of first instance. Since the part of the court below which interfered with the business of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the facts of this part of this case") is identical in relation to the social facts that constitute the basis for the order, it should be acquitted under Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the remainder of the public prosecution should be prosecuted, and it should be deemed that it interfered with the legal interests of this case by organizing a single crime and continuing to be prosecuted for a certain period of time.

In light of the record and the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the identity of the factual relationship of the criminal facts in the past.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant

The court below punished all acts of causing damage to or interference with general traffic by causing damage to the road, such as the road, or interference with traffic by other means, so as to make it impossible or remarkably difficult. The defendant has parked the tank of this case with a width of about 320 cm on the road of the first line with a width of about 260 cm for at least 4 months, so that the driver of the above lane passed through the road of this case can only pass through the opposite line without fail. This act can be seen as an act of making it impossible or considerably difficult for the driver to pass through the road of this case for a long time. ② The defendant's act of causing damage to the road of this case, such as the tank of this case, can be seen as an act of causing the driver to go through the road of this case, and the defendant's act of causing damage to the road of this case, such as the tank of this case, can be seen as an act of causing damage to the road of this case.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the judgment of the court below, such as deviating from the limit of free evaluation of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles on the establishment of a general traffic obstruction in violation of logical and empirical rules.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Poe-young

Min Il

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Shin-chul