logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.06.13 2014노288
경비업법위반
Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant act by Defendant A (Defendant A) is a legitimate manager of M building by the P (hereinafter “P”) whose representative director is the representative director. In light of the fact that S (hereinafter “S”) without legitimate management authority illegally occupies the M building with physical strength by mobilization of disabled services, including the central monitoring room, disaster prevention room, and major facilities of the building, under the influence of assault and intimidation against P’s employees, shop occupants, and customers, which interfere with management duties, such as: (a) performing minimum building management duties and protecting shop occupants; and (b) performing acts threatening to use a short leaflet to the shop occupants who do not pay management fees; and (c) performing security service duties entrusted to S (hereinafter “U”).

In addition, P entered into a management contract for M buildings between Defendant B, who was recognized as the president of the M Management and Operation Council (hereinafter “Council”) in the case of provisional injunction 2010Kahap1210, Seoul Eastern District Court, and the Seoul Central District Court 2009Kahap105623 case (Seoul High Court 2010Na77523 case) and Seoul High Court 2009Na119346 case ( conciliation protocol of October 12, 2010), etc.

As such, there was a minor conflict in the above paragraphs and exclusion of occupation.

Although Defendant A’s above act was either neglected or neglected by force or mobilized by physical force, its motive or purpose is justified, and its means and method is reasonable, and there is no other way to protect the interests as well as other ways to protect the interests, and thus, illegality is excluded as a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, this case.

arrow