logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.08.17 2018고정1693
업무방해등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a guest who gets a victim B (57) with a self-employed person in a taxi for business purpose operated by the defendant.

On May 12, 2018, at around 21:00, the Defendant: (a) boarded the victim’s taxi near the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Market, and (b) asked the victim to help the police officers by driving the taxi as the cab on the so-called “Icheon-do,” but the victim said that “I cannot go to Incheon,” “I cannot go to Incheon,” and intentionally requested the victim to refuse boarding the taxi.

1. On May 12, 2018, the Defendant interfered with his/her duties: (a) provided several guidances to the Defendant: (b) on several occasions, on May 12, 2018, at the 608 Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul National Assembly, at the 608 Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul National Assembly, on a parking lot; (c) the Yeongdeungpo-gu Police Station D and affiliated police stations, which moved at the site after receiving a report from the victim; and (d) the Defendant provided several guidances to the Defendant, “Seoul si is unable to go back to Incheon, and thus, he/she did not get off the 30 minutes without intentionally getting out of the parking lot.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's taxi operation without good cause.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, and at the places specified in the above paragraph 1, expressed that D of the Victim Yeongdeungpo-gu Police Station and F of the F F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the F of the c of the c of the c of the c of the c

“Cracker”, “Cracker”, and “hacker who died in a single room” and “hacker.”

Accordingly, the defendant openly insultingd the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. The application of the investigation report (the confirmation of cellphone images carried by the victim), the investigation report (the attachment of the complaint), the investigation report (the submission of extra images) and the Act and subordinate statutes.

arrow