beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. Facts charged;
A. During about four hours from August 20, 2013 to 19:55, the Defendant found that E works together with himself/herself within the insurance agency No. 3901 of the former C901 and there is no contact with him/her without being 1.2 million won, which was given the terms of insurance contract fees, and during the period of up to four hours, the Defendant interfered with the business of the insurance agency by force by preventing its employees, including E, from doing business by neglecting their duties. This year, date of death, this year, and this year. There is no money. The Defendant did not give money to the office. It does not mean that he/she will not run the office business in consideration of excreta. The Defendant: (a) caused the disturbance of the insurance terms and conditions, such as taking a book and the door to the bank; and (b) prevented its employees, including E from doing business.
B. The Defendant from September 2, 2013:10 to September 2, 2013
9.2. 11:30 up to 11:0,000 a.m. at the same place for about one hour.
For the same reason, E found a large amount of damage caused by “the bad years of death, mathal, mathal, and mathal,” and obstructed the work of the insurance agency by force by avoiding disturbance.
2. Determination
A. Among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the statements in F, G, H, I, J, and K are written by the witness F, G, H, I, J, and K as witness in this court and stated to the effect that “E was written as witness, but the content is different from the fact.” Therefore, the police statement in F is not trusted in light of the witness F’s legal statement.
Ultimately, evidence conforming to the facts charged is only a written complaint of E, a police statement of E, and a witness E’s testimony. The witness stated that “the defendant ought to view and leave” was the same. The witness stated that “I had a high character, not a bath,” and the witness I was at the office on August 20, 2013, and there was no desire such as the statement in the facts charged. The defendant did not throw a book at all.”