logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2011.05.31 2010고정727
업무방해 등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 12:00 on September 6, 200, the Defendant: (a) cut off the correction devices of the above apartment Nos. 1203 and 1301 in Sacheon-si C Apartment 101, 1203 and 1301, which are employees of D Co., Ltd., the Defendant operated by the Defendant; and (b) cut off the victim F, who is an employee of D Co., Ltd., the Defendant’s right of retention,

From around that time, the Defendant continued to enter and reside in the above apartment No. 1301, and around December 19, 2009, G, an employee of the above company, entered the above apartment No. 1203 with his family to enter and reside in the above apartment No. 1203, and intruded each of the structures managed by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of some police officers against the defendant;

1. Each statement made by witness F, H and I in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Statement made by the witness J in the seventh trial records;

1. Statement made by K witnesses in the eighth protocol of the trial;

1. Each police statement made to F, H, and I;

1. Each complaint;

1. A copy of the written decision (a claim for seizure and collection);

1. Copy of payment order;

1. A copy of the report on rights under the lien;

1. A copy of a subcontract agreement of construction works;

1. From April 208 to April 1, 2008, the Defendant held the above apartment Nos. 101, 1203, 1301 and 1303 and exercised the right of retention. After that, F’s access to the present door door door of 101, 1203, and 1301, thereby hindering the Defendant’s exercise of the right of retention. The Defendant asserted that his act is not unlawful since it is merely a continuous possession of the above apartment Nos. 101, 1203, 1301, and 1301.

The following circumstances acknowledged by this Court, namely, ① the Defendant’s moving-in report on May 20, 2008, which was made on May 20, 2008, pursuant to the accord and satisfaction agreement concluded with L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”), is irrelevant to the exercise of lien.

arrow