logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.05.08 2019노397
업무방해
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of facts charged and grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the facts charged is Defendant B’s village transfer to Motsan-gun, and Defendant A operated a dunes in the vicinity of the victim’s factory.

(1) On July 27, 2017, the Defendants conspired to commit the crime, from around 05:07 to around 05:54 on July 27, 2017, in order to have the victim E install containers on the access road to the factory to prevent the operation of the factory, on the ground that there is a risk of environmental pollution that there is a defect in raising the ridge between the factory and the factory in question using sewage sludge.

Defendant

B directed Defendant A to install containers on the access road to the factory, and Defendant A not to have access to the victim’s factory by allowing Defendant A to install a container on the fork and scke articles to prevent access to the victim’s factory by blocking access to the victim’s factory. In collusion, the Defendants interfered with the preparation of the victim’s factory business by force.

(2) On July 29, 2017, the Defendants conspired to commit the crime, from around 09:00 to around 10:00 on July 29, 2017, with a view to damaging the asphalt road of the factory access road for the same reason as the stated in paragraph (1) at the place specified in paragraph (1) (hereinafter “instant access road”).

Defendant

B directed the Defendant A to damage the asphalt road by using sckes, and the Defendant A prevented the Defendant from having the scke articles damaged the asphalt road, thereby preventing the Defendant from entering the victim’s factory, thereby obstructing the Defendant from entering the victim’s factory.

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendants’ installation of containers and damage to asphalt did not interfere with the entry of the vehicles into the access road of this case, there was another road to enter the victim’s factory, and there was the Defendants.

arrow