logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.03.14 2013노3976
업무방해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact-finding finding of a DNA religious organization is not due to the purpose of retaliation in order to ask the victim E, etc. about how he/she would be punished due to the crime that interfered with the business of the D religious organization one year prior to the occurrence of a crime, etc.

The victim did not commit violence or intimidation to the victim, and due to this, the victim does not have any fact that the victim has been disturbed with his/her duties.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court on the accused is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by the lower court’s judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant committed assault and intimidation against the victim. (A) The victim appeared as a witness in the lower court to the effect that “the Defendant took a posture and avoided drinking.” The Defendant threatened himself/herself by stating that he/she “I will die,” and said that he/she “I will also die.”

B) The F, together with the scene at the time of the crime, appeared as a witness in the court of original instance, and stated that “the Defendant would be dead.” At the time of the crime, G present at the court of original instance stated to the effect that “The Defendant tried to satisfy with a satisfy.” At the same time, he also appeared as a witness in the court of original instance and stated to the effect that “the Defendant would not be present in the prosecution and would be satisfy.” At the same time, G present at the scene of the crime was called as “the Defendant was present at the court of original instance,” and was called as “the Defendant would be satisfy with a satfy.” On the first floor, there are some differences between the victim and F’s statement about who reported the Defendant to the police as seen earlier.

arrow