logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2014.10.17 2014고정611 (1)
업무방해
Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 2013, 2013, the Defendant forced to return the minutes of the meeting, on the grounds that the content of the minutes omitted in the register of the council of occupants' representatives was omitted from the Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, the Defendant, thereby impairing its utility by concealing documents owned by the council of occupants' representatives.

2. On August 7, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was forced to remove the victim’s document on the ground that the victim D, who is the head of the management office of the apartment complex, was at issue in the order of investigation, on the ground that there were about 40 copies of the notice of “the resident satisfaction survey on the said apartment bulletin board and the elevator,” attached to the apartment bulletin board and the elevator, which was attached to the said apartment management office in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statements of the defendant in the second protocol of trial;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The defendant and defense counsel's defense of each police statement protocol defendant and defense counsel against D and E claimed. The defendant and defense counsel asserted that since the part on June 20, 2013 regarding the crime described in paragraph (1) of the judgment was omitted in the minutes of the council of occupants' representatives as of June 20, 2013, the defendant brought the register of the council of occupants' representatives to have the representatives of each Dong affixed their signatures and seals to correct it as the audit of the council of occupants' representatives was corrected, and as to the crime described in paragraph (2) of the judgment, the public notice was removed to correct it because the procedure stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act was entered differently in the public notice. Thus, all of the criminal facts of the judgment are that the defendant

On June 20, 2013, there are defects asserted by the defendant in the minutes of the council of occupants' representatives on June 20, 2013 and the public notice of "resident satisfaction survey on disinfection and tree management business."

Even if this is done through legitimate procedures, the minutes and the public announcements are amended.

arrow