logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2017.11.23 2017노331
직권남용권리행사방해등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or legal principles) is as follows: (a) the head of the job economy division at the time when M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”) moves into a H agro-industrial complex in FF government, and the head of the job economy division at the time of moving into the H agro-industrial complex, and (b) the above M was in a position to be responsible for the result of the cancellation of a contract for occupancy between F local governments and M in the administrative litigation, notwithstanding the authoritative interpretation of the Ministry of Environment; and (c) M was in a position to assist M to operate a factory in another place; (d) so that M was in a position to assist M to operate a factory at the site of 11,331.6 square meters of the K Factory site (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”) (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”); (e) there was sufficient motive for M to be awarded a successful bid in the auction procedure of the Daegu District Court, Seoul District Court (hereinafter referred to as “the auction auction of this case”); and (e) the Defendant was under participation in the auction auction strategy.

In full view of the local media articles, AF, AG’s statements, etc. on the Defendant and M’s milk suspicion at the time of appearance, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, in collusion with O, obstructed U, W, and X’s exercise of rights as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, by abusing official authority and obstructing U, W, and X’s exercise of rights, and that the Defendant was detrimental to the fairness

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

Judgment

The Defendant, from July 201 to December 31, 201, was serving as the director of the job economy division in F local governments from July 201 to December 31, 2012, and was promoted to the local administrative office.

arrow