업무방해등
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.
except that this judgment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (Interference with the business of the judgment) does not interfere with the business of the victim E by merely avoiding a unilateral attack committed by the joint Defendant B with B, or committing noise.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months (two years of suspended execution) and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on Defendant A
A. We examine the grounds for appeal by Defendant A ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.
On August 31, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor by the Incheon District Court for interference with the performance of official duties, and the said judgment was served on March 14, 2018 on March 6, 2018 by the dismissal ruling of the appeal was served on March 14, 2018.
The facts alleged in this court may be recognized by the records or are significant in this court.
The crime of each judgment of the court below against the defendant and the crime of obstructing the execution of official duties in relation to the crime of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive, shall be sentenced to punishment for each of the crimes of this case in consideration of equity with the concurrent judgment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.
In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.
However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to deliberation by the party, and this is examined below.
B. In the event that the appellate court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact did not have a new objective reason that could affect the formation of the conviction during the trial process, but intends to conduct a re-evaluation of the first deliberation decision after the ex post facto determination, there is a reasonable reason to deem that the first deliberation decision was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of fact is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.