(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2016.10.27 2016고단835

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) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2016.10.27 2016고단835

업무방해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 23:50 on April 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) expressed a large drinking value at the victim’s studs for work in C at a studs; (b) expressed the victim’s desire to “grings, chewings”; (c) added the 20 minutes of the disturbance to the head of the relevant office, such as “grings, chewings, and brings,” and booms, thereby obstructing the victim’s main business affairs by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment to 112 Reporting List);

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [A] Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Defendant did not interfere with his/her business as stated in the facts or facts charged that he/she took a bath at the time when he/she took a large amount of drinking value, or that he/she did not interfere with his/her business as stated in the facts charged. According to the aforementioned evidence, including the witness D’s legal statement, the Defendant stated that “the death of his/her house does not occur.” The Defendant’s statement to the effect that “the death of his/her house is not caused.” The Defendant’s statement to the effect that “the death of his/her house house is not caused.” The head of the office of the office of the main place of his/her house in his/her name is unable to calculate together with the bath theory, and it can be acknowledged that he/she interfered with his/her main business (the “comforcing force” in interference with his/her business is all likely to suppress a person’s free will.

Even if the defendant's above acts cause other customers who were in the main room to ask about whether they were in the defendant's abusive behavior and disturbance, they do not put any main point, they are sufficiently the elements of the crime of interference with business.

참조조문

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.07.04 2019고단1635

-의정부지방법원 2018.06.14 2018고정657

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.11.11 2020고정171

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2016.01.07 2015고단419

-의정부지방법원 2016.08.12 2016고단2331