logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2014.12.19 2014고정890
업무방해
Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Criminal facts

On February 19, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the transport of timber by the victim by force by loading signboards, lumbers, changeers, vehicles, etc. on the instant land so that the victim could not transport timber, on the ground that the Dong name industry, which is managed by the victim D, transported timber by means of the instant land and damaged the water, fences, and manle, etc. laid underground by the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness D and E respective legal statements;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines concerning the crime;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. In determining the crime of interference with business as to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (a postponed punishment: a fine of 500,000 won) does not necessarily mean only the ability to directly go to a person engaged in the business, but also include acts that make a certain physical condition sufficient to suppress a person’s free will and make it impossible or considerably difficult for a person to act freely.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732 Decided September 10, 2009). In the establishment of the crime of interference with business, the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence, but should be sufficient if there is a risk of interference with business to bring about the result of interference with business. The term “influence” includes not only interference with the performance of business itself, but also wide interference with the management of business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2983 Decided June 12, 2008). However, according to each of the above evidence, the victim is a passage through the transport of wood, etc. from 20 years before the defendant prevented the instant land.

arrow