(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.06.28 2017고정1242

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.06.28 2017고정1242

업무방해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Criminal facts

From June 23, 2017 to June 24, 2016, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s authorized broker office’s operation by force by blocking electricity on “D real estate” on the ground that the victim’s victim’s operation of the “D real estate” office using electricity together with this restaurant is not informed of the electricity charge in a “C” restaurant located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the defendant's partial statement in the first trial record (the purport that he/she made electricity on June 23, 2017 and made electricity on June 24, 2017).

1. Application of the respective legal statements of witness E and F to the Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime: Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Attraction of a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. The provisional payment order: Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As to the assertion that there was no danger of interference with business, the crime of interference with business was completed at the time of occurrence of a situation that is likely to interfere with business, and the actual occurrence of interference does not require the occurrence of interference (an abstract dangerous crime). Therefore, as long as a situation where the defendant's electric blocking is likely to interfere with business of the victim, the crime of interference with business against the defendant was completed, so this part of the allegation by the defendant and the defense counsel is rejected.

2. As to the assertion that there was no illegality by a legitimate act, even though the Defendant did not receive the electricity charge from the injured party, in light of the dispute surrounding the electricity charge between the Defendant and the injured party, which may be known by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant’s act of receiving the electricity charge from the injured party and its method deviates from the scope cited in light of social norms.

I would like to say.

In addition, the defendant is confined to the defendant.

참조조문

-형법 제69조 제2항

-형법 제70조 제1항

-형법 제314조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.02.21 2018노946

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.07.19 2018고단316

-제주지방법원 2016.09.09 2015가단56184

-서울북부지방법원 2018.02.09 2017나36749

-의정부지방법원 2020.01.16 2019나203669