logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2011. 5. 13. 선고 2011도2368 판결
[권리행사방해][미간행]
Main Issues

[1] The meaning of "the possession of another person" in the obstruction of exercise of rights

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which found the defendant guilty of obstruction of another’s exercise of right under Article 323 of the Criminal Code on the ground that obstruction of the exercise of right by Gap’s exercise of right as the lien holder in case where Gap’s comprehensive construction company’s possession for the exercise of right of retention had been cancelled and resided in the house with its wife (the wife)

[Reference Provisions]

[1] Article 323 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 323 of the Criminal Act

Reference Cases

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4257 Decided November 28, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 86) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6578 Decided October 14, 2010

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Suwon District Court Decision 2010No3934 decided February 8, 2011

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Article 323 of the Criminal Code refers to the possession by title, that is, the possession of an object based on justifiable cause, but it does not necessarily refer to only the possession based on the principal right, but it is also the possession based on the right of retention.

As determined by the court below, if the non-indicted stock company occupied the house for the exercise of the lien as the lien holder of the instant house, the defendant's interference with the exercise of lien holder's right with his wife constitutes Article 323 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just.

The ground of appeal is that the above non-indicted corporation is not a legitimate lien, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence or in violation of the rules of experience and logic against the rules of free evaluation of evidence in the process of cooking the evidences and the process of fact-finding by the court below. Thus, the above argument is not

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)

arrow