logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.11.15 2013노2952
업무방해등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: Error of facts (as to obstruction of business, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s business by force) and unfair sentencing. B. Error of facts (as to obstruction of business, there was a little time or minor dispute between the victim D and the victim D.

Prosecutor: Error of facts (as to the destruction of and damage to property, according to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, it is recognized that the defendant intentionally damaged the victim's property by destroying the floor of the disinfection machine), and unfair sentencing on February 1, 200.

A. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the first instance court as to each of the allegations of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force due to the circumstances as stated in the first instance court's decision. In light of the records, the first instance court's decision that the defendant was acquitted of the charges of causing property damage for the reasons as stated in its holding, and there is no illegality such as misconception of facts that affected the judgment, and thus, each of the above arguments by the defendant

B. In full view of the following: (a) there is no criminal power over the Defendant’s respective arguments on unfair sentencing; (b) the victim does not want punishment against the Defendant; and (c) the degree of interference with the instant business; (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; (e) the background and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the method and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) it is difficult to deem that the first instance court’s fine imposed on the Defendant by taking into account all the aforementioned circumstances into account is too heavy or unreasonable; and (d) it is difficult to view that the Defendant and the prosecutor’

3. Accordingly, we cannot accept all appeals filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow