(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.11.24 2015노1128 | 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) 춘천지방법원 2016.11.24 2015노1128

업무방해등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

Defendant

B The above fine shall not be paid.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were requested to the victim on October 20, 2014 to handle the duties of the chief of the J extraordinary session fairly, and there was no intention to interfere with his/her duties. On October 29, 2014, the Defendants did not assault the victim on November 20, 2014 as there was no interference with the victim’s work of the chief of the J extraordinary session. Accordingly, the Defendants did not assault the victim on November 20, 2014 as there was no fear that the victim would have made a mistake of the chief of the J extraordinary session to the effect that it would be unreasonable for the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant A’s fine of KRW 2 million, Defendant B, C, and each fine of KRW 1 million, Defendant E, F, and G) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants asserted the same purport in the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion and found the Defendants guilty of each of the facts charged in this case. If the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below is compared with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is

It is recognized that the Defendants, as stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case, sought the victim’s attorney-at-law office or prevented access to the JJ office in order to resist the method of the victim’s appointment of the chief of the JI and to request fair business operations.

However, considering the fact that the victim’s attorney-at-law office was located for about 30 minutes to 1 hours after finding the victim’s attorney-at-law office at the time of the victim’s business, when the victim visited the J Office to take over the duties of the J Office, it is clear that the Defendants interfered with the victim’s business by force.

The facts charged in the instant case are intended for the purpose of demanding fair performance of duties or ensuring unfair performance of duties.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2015.10.13 2015고정299

-청주지방법원 영동지원 2014.09.29 2014고정5

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2014.06.20 2014고정260

-서울남부지방법원 2012.11.13 2012고정1460

-대전지방법원 2018.10.12 2018노264