logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.08.21 2019고정332
업무방해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who works as a dump truck engineer that takes away earth and sand from the site of the dump truck work site near the Diplomatic Association located in Kimhae-si, where the victim B (Nam, 54 years old) works as a field manager.

1. On November 18, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 06:00 on November 18, 2018, at the construction site at the above site; (b) on the ground that the E dump truck used at the construction site at the above site was damaged by a dump truck, and the dump truck used at the construction site at the above site; (c) demanded repair to the victim because the dump truck was damaged by the string of the vehicle behind the vehicle due to the steel board shielding on the floor; and (d) the victim did not immediately enter it, the Defendant stopped the dump truck at the entrance of the bottle where the vehicles carrying earth at the construction site enter and depart, thereby preventing another dump truck from shipping out of the earth.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the duty to manage the victim's site at the construction site for about 2 hours by force.

2. On November 21, 2018, the Defendant, at around 05:00 on November 21, 2018, obstructed the Defendant’s duty to manage the site at construction sites by force for a period of up to two hours by means of force, such as the foregoing paragraph, at the same place as the foregoing paragraph (1), and for the same reason as the foregoing paragraph.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning B;

1. On-the-spot photographs of obstruction of business (the defendant was unable to see the person responsible for the damage of his own vehicle, and did not intend to obstruct the victim's business. However, even according to the defendant's statement made at an investigative agency, the construction site of this case cannot be set off by other vehicles or scrailss, etc. on the part of the entrance or entrance way, and the defendant's own knowledge of such circumstances, but it seems that the obstruction of business would result in the obstruction of business. The defendant's assertion against this is rejected).

1. Relevant provisions concerning facts constituting an offense;

arrow