(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.09.23 2016노1676 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.09.23 2016노1676

업무방해등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant (guilty part) 1 is guilty of the facts that the defendant committed an act, such as misunderstanding the victim's goods, etc., but the fact that the defendant caused a risk of interference with the victim's business.

It is difficult to see, and the Defendant did not have made the same speech as the crime of this case that defames the victim’s reputation, and even if such a speech was made, it is not false.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's crime of obstruction of business and injury to reputation by expressing false facts is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the judgment.

2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the intrusion into the waiting room against his will, although it could sufficiently be found that the Defendant violated the waiting room against his will, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the intrusion out of the facts charged in the instant case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s business by force, such as by placing the goods on the part of the victimized person’s shop, which were on the top of the floor, keeping the frighten of the damaged person’s shop, and preventing him from running his business, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment. The said act alone interfered with the Defendant’s business.

I seem to appear.

In addition, according to the above evidence, it is sufficient that the defendant defames the victim by openly pointing out false facts against the victim through the statement as stated in the judgment of the court below.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.05.13 2015노1470

-광주지방법원 2018.10.16 2017노2947

-수원지방법원 2016.05.13 2015노6123

-대구지방법원 2018.01.19 2017노1524

-서울북부지방법원 2017.10.26 2017노1335