폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동퇴거불응)
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) and the statement by the assent of all members F, H, and G, and the Defendant A issued a disposition to prohibit access to the partnership. Defendant B was not a member of the partnership, and thus, the Defendants were not allowed to access the partnership’s office. In full view of the circumstances at the time when the Defendants were unable to resist F by resisting the Defendants from the partnership’s office and the president’s office, the Defendants’ failure to comply with the F’s request for eviction is sufficiently recognized.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which determined that F did not demand the Defendants to leave the voice files submitted by the Defendants only.
2. In addition to the circumstances revealed by the judgment of the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① around 58 to 14 seconds from the time CCTV images recording the inside situation of the association office begin, the defendants appear at the scene where the defendants are living in the association office and they voluntarily close the door of the association office. These actions cannot be viewed as the defendants' attitude. ② The president of the association, the president of the association, and the president of the association, who had been witnessed from the beginning of the situation, do not memory the "F Defendants" in the court of the court of the court below, and the "F Defendants" in the court of the court of the court below.
Defendant
A reported to the police because the land of access has been in the partnership office and has been in the partnership office.
“The statement was made only to the effect that “” (162 pages of the trial record) and ③ H made a statement to the effect that “F was “F, who would have come to the president of the cooperative, to the president of the cooperative, made several statements to the Defendants “F, so there was a meeting”. However, according to CCTV images and voice files, the Defendants’ voice from the point of time when the Defendants entered the cooperative room after the Defendants entered the cooperative room ( approximately 2 minutes 30 seconds from the beginning of theCCTV images).