(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.05.11 2020노86

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) 서울서부지방법원 2020.05.11 2020노86

퇴거불응등

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the erroneous determination of facts (1) (1) the victim C did not have any fact that the victim C had “Bara” against the Defendant, and the victim demanded the Defendant to be sent to the Defendant for family affairs.

Even if the defendant is not guilty, he/she shall leave the victim.

Since it was impossible to hear the Gu, the defendant has no intention to refuse to leave.

(2) On May 15, 2019, the Defendant did not have any fact that there was any interview with the victim C and there was no threat against the victim C, as to the point of intimidation (2019 order3025).

(3) As to obstruction of business and insult (2019No3135), the Defendant was aware that the victim J saw the victim who was frighter to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright the victim.

However, there was no interference with the above victim's nursing services, and there was no desire as stated in the facts charged. As stated in the domestic facts charged, "Woo woo who does not fump the surgery on the same bitch fum."

Even if it is clear that the victim is not a victim in light of its content, it is not an insulting victim.

B. The defendant asserts that, with respect to the punishment imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment), the defendant is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below concerning the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts (1) that the defendant's refusal to leave (2019Sang 1657), the victim C continuously instructed the defendant, and requested the police to provide the personal protection from the defendant around May 16, 2019. At around 19:00 the same day, the defendant was entered the office of the second E-story attached to the Bridge managed by the victim, the fact that the defendant was not even though the victim was no even though he was called the victim, but did not comply with the request even though the above church pastor was called the victim several times, and the communication or horse fighting in the report processing table of 112 cases is also made.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2014.11.28 2014노1323

-대구지방법원 2016.08.12 2016노935

-춘천지방법원 속초지원 2013.01.17 2012고정240

-서울북부지방법원 2020.05.14 2019고단1816

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.01 2019노2066