(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.05.24 2012노3438 | 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) 대구지방법원 2013.05.24 2012노3438

업무방해

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

A. The entrance stairs leading to the rooftop of the instant commercial building consisting of the stairs adjacent to the defendant's store (hereinafter "the instant stairs") located adjacent to the victim D's shop located adjacent to the defendant's shop (hereinafter "the instant stairs"). Thus, even if the defendant, even if he opened the door to the entrance of the instant stairs and opened it to the locks, the victims still may open the door on the rooftop using the steel stairs. In addition, the defendant's installation of the corrective device in the instant stairs was aimed at preventing the occurrence of the accident, such as the juvenile's flight on the rooftop or the dumping of garbage on the rooftop by unspecified persons, and it was difficult for the M market merchants to easily use the instant stairs on the rooftop, and thus, it does not interfere with business since the defendant's act does not interfere with the defendant's business, such as gas replacement, etc., and thus, it does not constitute a crime of interference with business.

B. In addition, the victim D has already been in a state of director in a different place five years prior to the operation in the M market, and the victim H is not engaged in the business in the M market, but only used as a scambling house. The victim H and F's store is close to the iron stairs, and the victim H and F's store is far away from the instant stairs more than 100 meters, and there is no reason to use the instant stairs, and therefore there is no interference with their business. In this respect, the crime of interference with business is not established against

C. Nevertheless, the lower court deemed the Defendant to have committed the crime of interference with business, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of interference with business or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

(a) Matters concerning the number of crimes;

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.23 2018나58037 (1)

-울산지방법원 2017.05.31 2016나4204

-서울동부지방법원 2020.05.22 2019나1420

-서울고등법원 2019.09.19 2019노1341

-춘천지방법원 2013.10.02 2012노51