(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.24 2014노3342

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.24 2014노3342

방실침입등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and obstruction of business, the Defendant merely asked the victim F to the section for common use, which is the passage front of the GKap, operated by the victim, that the Defendant should not spread false facts to the victim as to the fact that the Defendant mentioned the victim F as U-U.D. relation.

The above passage infringed upon a room possessed by another person by the defendant for common use jointly possessed by the defendant and the victim.

No one can be deemed to have interfered with or interfered with his/her duties, and there is no fact that he/she assaultss his/her hand as he/she leads to the face of the victim in connection with the use of violence.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles, first of all, the defendant operated a resting facility that sells coffee and drinking water, etc. adjacent to the victim's floor. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant and the victim have a dispute over the boundary partition, advertisement board location while conducting the same kind of business, the defendant and the victim have partially occupied the passage part by leaving a shock rink, etc. on the passage. On the day of this case, the fact that the defendant invadedd the inside of the wall partitioned by the victim's Gapet on the day of this case.

Even if the victim illegally occupies part of the passage, the crime of intrusion is established as long as the defendant intrudes into the car page actually occupied by the victim. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant did not establish the crime of intrusion and interference with business is without merit, since the defendant was only in common areas.

Next, on the point of violence:

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.08.13 2013고정6216

-수원지방법원 2018.07.10 2017노8815

-부산지방법원 2015.10.06 2015고단825

-서울고등법원 2013.05.02 2013노501

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2019.09.26 2019고단1328