폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C (1) The Defendant did not witness and stop the establishment of the association at the site of this case according to the entrance entrance of the association promotion committee, and there was only the entry of the door to the office for the opening of the meeting, and there was no collusion in advance. Thus, the judgment of the court below which recognized the damage of the joint property or the joint residence intrusion was erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.
Furthermore, since the defendant's entry into the above office in order to attend the meeting of the promotion committee constitutes a justifiable act, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension
In addition, since the defendant transferred the name of the telephone line to A and conspired with A to commit a crime that interferes with the victim's business, the judgment of the court below which recognized the conspiracy relationship is erroneous in the misconception of facts.
(2) The sentence of the lower court (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant D (1) The locking of the entrance was accepted by the R director of the service company, and the Defendant was not recruited.
In addition, the way to the office is opened by the employees of the service company, and the defendant does not enter the office by drilling the employees of the other service company.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the damage of joint property or joint residential intrusion is erroneous in the misconception of facts.
Furthermore, since the defendant's entry into the above office in order to attend the meeting of the promotion committee constitutes a justifiable act, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension
(2) The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In order to establish joint principal offenders with respect to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the Defendants’ joint property damage and joint residence intrusion, the subjective requirement is the intent of joint processing and the objective requirement, and is functional by the joint doctor.