logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.02.21 2018고단3584
업무방해등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 16:50 on July 26, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the business of selling the victim’s mobile phone for about 20 minutes by force, such as: (a) the Defendant, on the ground that he/she did not know well the Defendant at the “D” mobile phone store in Daegu Suwon-gu B, on the ground that he/she did not know well the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant, “nick , , fuck, bit of bitch, bit of bitch.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (to attachCCTV images);

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act and Article 314 of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with respect to the crime of interference with business has a record of having been punished several times for the crime of interference with business between the defendant and the defendant, the crime of this case is not good.

However, the defendant's character and conduct, family relations, criminal record relations, circumstances before and after the crime of this case are considered as follows: the defendant recognized the crime of this case and agreed with the victim smoothly, the mental and medical treatment of the victim is currently being reached at the age of 70 years of age, etc.

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. The Defendant, at around 05:50 on November 1, 2018, 2018, expressed the Defendant’s desire to “the victim F (51 years of age) who is a tenant residing there was a 112 report to the 112, and received the attention from a police officer on the ground that he reported the 112, and she was aware of the victim’s flabing at the ma, she was sping the victim’s flab with a flabing hand. The Defendant flabing the victim’s flab with a flabed hand. The Defendant flabed the victim’s flab with a flabed hand at one time. The Defendant continued to flab the victim’s flabed part of the victim’s flab with the flabing flabing of the victim’s flab on the floor.

arrow