logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.12.11 2014노1663
업무방해
Text

The judgment below

On June 14, 2013, the part concerning business obstruction shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, interference with business on June 14, 2013.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal by witness D, E, and H’s legal statement in the court below, even though the defendant could be found to have obstructed the victim D’s work by force, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below acquitted the defendant, and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor examined the reasons for appeal by the ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the contents of the previous facts charged as to June 14, 2013, and the subject of the judgment by this court was changed by granting permission. As such, the part concerning interference with business on June 14, 2013 among the judgment below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, so it will be examined.

B. On July 17, 2013, at around 08:40, the Defendant interfered with the construction work of the victim’s building by force over about 40 minutes in a way that he/she was unable to receive the cost of construction from the victim D, the head of the construction site at the site of the studio construction in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, on the ground that he/she was unable to receive the cost of construction from the victim D, the head of the above construction site at the site of the construction site at the site of Kimpo-si.

B) At around 08:30 to 09:10 on June 13, 2013, the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s work to prevent the progress of the work at the construction site by force by force for the employees invested to carry out the internal construction of the studio construction site at the time, on the grounds that the Defendant did not receive the construction cost at the construction site at the time, Kimpo C Studio construction site at the time.

arrow