logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.04.16 2014고단4092
업무방해등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, a public prosecution against the victim C is instituted.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 15:00 on March 2014, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim D, who entered the “F Ma” working for the victim D in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and, without any justifiable reason, she interfered with the victim’s marina business by spreading the fet to the front floor of the fropper, without any reason, while she was able to remove the sound from the fet, and by force of approximately 20 minutes, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s marina business by avoiding disturbance, such as punishing the victim who entered the fet and the fet from the outside to the outside to restrain it.

On April 2014, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim G entered the “Frant” managed by the victim G located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, with the end of 10:00-11:00, and interfered with the victim’s marina business by force for about 30 minutes by avoiding disturbance while there is an unrest customer.

At around 19:00 on August 2014, the Defendant: (a) carried the rice purchased from a nearby Imt while drinking alcohol; (b) obstructed the victim’s marina business by force for about one-hour period of time by avoiding disturbance among customers, i.e., selling the rice at Im, “drat,” and continuing sound, making the victim’s chest a drinking, etc.; and (c) interfered with the victim’s marina business by force.

On May 2014, at around 11:30, the Defendant’s interference with the business of the victim J came to the “LA restaurant” operated by the victim J in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and went to the front door through the door of the above store opened, and the victim was prevented from leaving the front door, and the above victim’s interference with the business is deemed to be out of the front door, and the Defendant’s desire to “Sari” is deemed to be inside the front door.

arrow