logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2016.04.06 2015고정963
업무방해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is in a de facto marital relationship for 47 years with the victim C (n, 72 years of age) and 47 years from September 2014.

1. On September 8, 2015, from around 13:00 to 13:20 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s main business by force by preventing the Defendant from selling his/her livelihood to customers by putting a disturbance, such as where the vegetable F of the victim’s vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable, on the ground that the vegetable F of the victim’s vegetable vegetable vegetable vege with the victim’s vegetable vegetable vegetable vege with the victim’s vegetable.

2. On September 9, 2015, from around 13:00 to 13:40 on September 9, 2015, the Defendant: (a) prevented customers from entering the upper point of view by taking the disturbance, such as taking the victim’s large interest at the place under paragraph (1) for the same reason; and (b) obstructed the victim’s store business by force.

3. The Defendant, from around 13:30 on September 10, 2015 to around 13:55, to Dong F of the Victim for the same reason in the place set forth in paragraph 1, from around 13:30 to around 13:5:

In order to avoid the disturbance, customers who had been on the top of the disturbance, such as taking the bath to see the end, etc., interfered with the victim's main business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Each investigation report (for on-site situations, etc., the statement from a witness G and the records of transfer of the suspect's family protection) / (The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant only engaged in a minor speech dispute with the victim at the upper point of the victim and did not interfere with the victim's business by force. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant's right to request the defendant and his/her defense counsel cannot be accepted, since he/she interferes with the victim'

Application of Statutes

1. Criminal facts;

arrow