logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.06.29 2016노1580
업무방해
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts), it can be acknowledged that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s insurance designer’s business by preventing the victim F from working at work as stated in the facts charged in the instant case or arbitrarily placing the victim’s books, fixtures, etc.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that it is difficult to believe that the F, G’s investigation agency, and the court below’s legal statement that seem to conform to the facts charged of the instant case is difficult and there is no other evidence to

In full view of the following circumstances revealed through evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below's judgment, the court below's determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

B. G, the core witness of the instant case, reversed the existing statement at the trial, thereby preventing the Defendant from attending school, or sustaining the victim’s books or their articles.

was stated.

G is more reliable in accordance with H’s consistent statement at the lower court and the trial court and the consistent statement at the trial court that the Defendant did not regard as an act recorded in the facts charged, and the statement of witness M at the trial at the time of the case where the Defendant was ordinarily working at the place of the case.

On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that the statements made by the victim as shown in the facts charged of the instant case are inconsistent with the above and reliable statements of G, H and M.

3. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.

arrow