(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.04.14 2015고정735

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 2016.04.14 2015고정735

업무방해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 21, 2015, from around 03:14 to 03:27 of the same day, the Defendant expressed to the victim E (26:3) (a) who was an employee of Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (b) expressed before the towing that he reported himself to the police; and (c) expressed that “the victim’s convenience store business operation was obstructed for approximately 13 minutes by force by force, such as putting his own sound in front of the entrance and avoiding disturbance.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Crime CCTV images CDs;

1. An investigation report (Submission, etc. of the suspect's written application) (the crime of interference with the business under Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with the business of the person by deceptive means or by force. In this case, the term "power" means all the forces that may control and confuse a person's free will, and the person shall not be arrested either by tangible or intangible means or by force.

In addition, with respect to the obstruction of business affairs, the term “influence of business affairs” includes not only interference with a particular business affairs itself, but also hindering the smooth progress of business affairs, and it is sufficient if the conclusion of the obstruction of business affairs does not require the actual occurrence of the result of interference, but also causes the risk of causing the interference of business affairs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do3767, May 14, 1999; 2009Do4141, May 24, 2012). The following facts are recognized according to each of the above evidence.

1) On January 21, 2015, the day of the instant case, the Defendant sought convenience points of the instant case, while under the influence of alcohol around 01:53, and referred to a fine issue arising from a criminal case between the victim and the Defendant, while making a large statement to the victim within the convenience point, and made a dispute over eight minutes or more in the process.

2) The victim is only the defendant at the convenience store in the above process.

참조조문

-형법 제314조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 1999. 5. 14. 선고 98도3767 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.10.27 2017노42

-부산지방법원 2016.09.30 2015노3967

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.17 2017고단6755

-의정부지방법원 2016.02.03 2015노2331

-서울남부지방법원 2016.06.14 2015고정2365