logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2015.06.17 2015고단1220
업무방해등
Text

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

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 09:55 on March 8, 2015, the Defendant: (a) asked the victim E, who is an employee of the said store, to whether bread is sold; and (b) asked the victim E, who was an employee of the said store, to look at whether bread is sold; and (c) made the victim’s desire to put the cosmetics displayed in the said store on the floor; and (d) put the victim with the cosmetic displayed in the said store on the floor; and (e) harming the victim, the Defendant was unable to avoid the disturbance for about 30 minutes.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's management of the above cosmetics store by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E and F;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. At around 09:55 on March 8, 2015, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by referring to “D” cosmetics located in the Categu, Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-si, a member of the said store, to “A” 112 reported by E, who was an employee of the said store, and the victim’s slope F, who was dispatched after receiving the said 112 report, listens to the circumstances of damage against the said E., while the victim was heard a large number of criminal behaviors, such as the above E, while the victim Da Da Da was h, who was hume, governance, humping, and governance.”

2. We examine the judgment. This is a crime falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act, which can be prosecuted only upon a victim’s complaint under Article 312(1) of the Criminal Act. According to the F’s letter of withdrawal of complaint filed in the records, F, the complainant, can recognize the fact that the complaint was withdrawn against the Defendant on May 7, 2015, which is the date of the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow