logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.10.13 2016노1111
업무방해등
Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant B and the conviction against Defendant F are reversed.

Defendant

B. a fine.

Reasons

1. The appellate court’s trial scope (Defendant F) rendered a judgment of innocence on the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) in 2015 and 1714, among the facts charged against Defendant F, and rendered a judgment of conviction on the remainder of the facts charged, and filed an appeal on the conviction of Defendant F only.

Therefore, since the portion of the judgment of the court below which the prosecutor did not appeal is finalized as it is, the object of this court's judgment against Defendant F is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding 1) The Defendants’ 2014 senior 5192, senior 2627, senior 2015 senior 2015 senior 6722, senior 5192, senior 2014 senior 5192, senior 2015 senior 67205 senior 67205 senior 67205 senior 67205 senior 2015 senior 2015 senior 672 cases are identical to the facts charged.

1) A person who has committed an anti-social act that is difficult to be regarded as a gender, such as embezzlement of church property and disturbance of church order, is not a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment with labor and continues to engage in an anti-social act that is difficult to be regarded as a gender, and thus, a pastor’s duties performed by U cannot be deemed as a duty worthy of protection under the Criminal Act.

② As to the obstruction of the business of the 2014 Highest 5192, 2015 Highest 2015 Highest 672, the Defendants were to enter into a church through a parking box in order to put the funeral on an emergency stairs, and the Defendants are the abbreviation of the “Emergency Countermeasure Committee” with the members supporting the said U.S.

On the other hand, while trying to go from parking off and to make a tent dividend, the side was only in a state of winding in a narrow channel, and there was no intention to obstruct U's work.

2) Defendant C, E, F, N,O, P’s 2015 and 1714, non-performance part of the instant towing.

arrow