logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.02.03 2016노1052
권리행사방해
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant paid only three-thirds of interest by August 2015; (b) the Defendant did not pay interest and principal; and (c) the Defendant asked the Defendant to urge the Defendant to call on September 2015, 2015 that the employee in charge of the victimized company was “be hospitalized in Asan Hospital”; and (d) the Defendant, despite having no means to pay interest on the loan, requested large-amount of 1.2 million won or more in return for the Defendant’s request to carry out large-amount printing; and (c) instead, without paying the expenses, was intentional to interfere with the Defendant’s exercise of rights by concealing the motor vehicle that was the object of the rights of the victimized company, thereby hindering the exercise of rights.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On May 22, 2015, the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with Rod Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., which was located in Daejeon Pung-gu, with the 15 million won, and offered the Defendant’s property as security and set up a collateral worth of 22.5 million won for the maximum amount of the bonds.

However, on August 25, 2015, when the Defendant did not repay all of the loans, the Defendant anticipated that only three times interest should be paid to the creditor company, Inc. and Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. be seized, and obstructed the Defendant’s exercise of rights by concealing the said Crocketing car, which is the subject of another’s rights.

B. The part revealed as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the above facts was also controversial in the court below, and the court below acquitted the defendant as follows.

"Harborment" in the obstruction of exercise of rights as provided for in Article 323 of the Criminal Act is impossible or considerably difficult to detect the location of a thing.

arrow