logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.08.18 2016고정487
업무방해
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

The defendant is the chairperson of the management group of the C commercial building in the case of Pakistan.

When operating a building management service company under the trade name of "E Co., Ltd.", the victim D entered into an entrustment contract for the management of F and commercial building, the representative of the contractor, and F and the management of the above "C" building, and managed the commercial building between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016.

Around December 1, 2015, the Defendant unilaterally notified the victim of the termination of a commercial building management contract on the ground that the management part of the above “C” building was constituted, and subsequently, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s building management affairs by force by allowing the “Korea-Manb Co., Ltd.” to arbitrarily replace the entrance locking devices such as the 1st floor management office on the ground of the above commercial building, the 2nd floor mechanical room, and the pumps room on the ground of the above building, and by preventing the commercial building occupants from paying management fees.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A complaint;

1. A copy of the contract for the entrustment of management affairs and a copy of the response to the notice of the termination of the management contract [the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that since the defendant committed an act stated in the facts charged for the management of the building, it would be justified as

However, in light of the background and process of the Defendant’s act, situation at the time, contents and method of the Defendant’s act, etc., which can be seen by the above evidence, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as reasonable, and urgency and supplement cannot be recognized. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and illegality cannot be excluded.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 314 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

arrow