beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On August 31, 2012, the Defendant: (a) committed an act of obstructing the use of electricity by blocking electricity from the said place without permission on the ground that the victim E, who rents a one-story store in the D cafeteria located in Daegu-gun, was habitually delinquent in paying electricity charges; and (b) thereby obstructing the victim’s business of selling food materials.
2. On August 31, 2012, the Defendant: (a) constructed partitions in a restaurant to use part of the restaurant as an employee accommodation; (b) on that occasion, the electrical safety manager F took measures to cut electricity; and (c) the Defendant was using other electricity on the part of the victim; (d) there was no criminal intent to interfere with the business of the victim’s store operation; and (e) denied the facts charged.
The photograph (proof No. 8) submitted by the defendant and the witness F's legal statement conforms to this.
In addition, it cannot be ruled out the probability that the defendant might have taken the above measures, in order for the victim to do the first electrical construction around the 25th day of the same month, and thus, to have been able to use electricity even before the end.
In light of these circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged only with the statement of the witness E, witness G, witness H's each legal statement, the statement of the written accusation of E, and the statement of the police statement of E, and there is no other proof of the prosecutor.
The protocol of interrogation of the police against the accused is inadmissible by the content side of the accused.
Thus, the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325.
On the other hand, there seems to have existed several times, but the establishment of the crime of interference with business due to the interruption of force different from the above facts charged is not subject to the judgment of this court.