(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.11.09 2017노1707 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2017.11.09 2017노1707

예배방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, for approximately 3 to 5 minutes, “Irnn, Innnnn, Innnnnb, Innb.”

“There was only three to four sound sounds, and there was no fact of 50 times or more as stated in the facts constituting the crime, or of obstructing the vessels for one hour, and there was no intention to obstruct the vessels.

In addition, the illegality is excluded because the defendant's sound is a general religious act of the members, and it is an act to cope with the illegal exercise of authority by the head of the D church.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, namely, ① according to the voice file in which the Defendant’s statement was recorded at the time of the formation of the Chapter E, the Defendant’s statement was recorded about 50 times, and “Nim” and “One Narn” are included in approximately 50 times.

“Along with the time of the Defendant’s sound and the size of the voice that can be verified through the above voice file, the Defendant caused considerable trouble to the said voice due to the above act by the Defendant.

In light of the fact that under the defendant's initiative, the defendant's name, as well as the defendant's name, boomed against E, and 3. The defendant was engaged in towing together with other people in several times, and even if the defendant received the above request from the above people to refrain from doing the above act, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed the same act as the crime in the judgment of the court, and that there was an intention to interfere with worship, and that there was an intention to interfere with worship.

In addition, in the light of the above circumstances,

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.06.01 2017고정416

-서울동부지방법원 2016.01.22 2015고정1233

-서울남부지방법원 2020.07.22 2020고정275

-서울남부지방법원 2019.11.22 2019노1351

-울산지방법원 2016.05.26 2016노346