(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.07.07 2017노146 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2017.07.07 2017노146

업무방해등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of legal principles 1) As at the time of the instant case, the victim company closed the door door at the time of the lower judgment, the Defendants were forced to park on the access road to the door, and the parking time was about 18 cc. from 9:00 to 18:00. If the victim company requested advance cooperation, the victim company parked in a place located far away from the door. Thus, there was an intention to interfere with the business.

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the judgment.

2) Defendant B parked in the place where the assembly was reported lawfully as stated in the judgment below, and obstructed the shipping of goods by the victim company was due to the fact that the victim company’s act was not a parked automobile but a member of the assembly, and thus, Defendant B had an intention to interfere with the above Defendant’s business.

It is difficult to see that a parked vehicle was one vehicle, and it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a "power" of interference with business affairs.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (each of 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendants also asserted that the grounds for appeal are similar to the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination as to the allegations on the part of paragraphs (1) through (3) of the facts constituting an offense as indicated in the lower judgment. The lower court did not appear to have rejected the request of the Defendants even though the victim company demanded the replacement of a parked vehicle, and there were no special circumstances to make it impossible for the Defendants to move the vehicle, or to park in another place, and ② the victim company is towing the towing vehicle to obstruct the entry

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.03.23 2016노2456

-광주고등법원 2016.01.21 2015노463

-인천지방법원 2016.06.01 2015노4812

-대구지방법원 2016.01.22 2014노179

-울산지방법원 2017.01.19 2016노1480