(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.09.28 2016노654 | 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) 대전지방법원 2016.09.28 2016노654

업무방해등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant did not have avoided disturbance, such as misunderstanding of facts and obstruction of business, by continuously taking a bath for about 20 minutes as stated in the facts charged.

Even if according to the facts charged, the defendant's act is limited to the extent of the resistance of the driver to the degree of the driver's non-confiscing of money, and the act does not reach the close to the driver's body or the driver's hand over his body. Thus, the act of the defendant does not constitute an act that interferes with his duties by force.

2) Although the Defendant had been trying to talk with a driver C after getting off a bus, there was a fact that police officers prevented him from doing so and attempted to escape it. However, there was no assault on police officers like the facts charged.

It is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of entering the facts charged as a 40-year woman has reached the degree of interfering with the performance of official duties.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act constitutes an act of interference with the business by force, as seen in the facts charged, was sufficiently recognized that the Defendant returned to a bus operated by the injured party while taking a bath inside the bus and allowing the injured party to operate the bus at low speed, and that the above act constitutes an act of interference with the business by force. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the misapprehension of

① A victim bus driver C has consistently expressed a disturbance from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, such as: (a) the Defendant took a heavy voice in the bus and took a bus passage; and (b) the Defendant avoided the disturbance, and (c) the speed of 50 to 60 km.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.09.29 2017노681

-전주지방법원 2017.11.30 2017노924

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.02 2016노365

-부산지방법원 2021.01.14 2020노3225

-대전지방법원 2018.02.01 2017노3397