폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)등
The judgment below
Defendant E, F, and I's convictions against Defendant E, F, and I, and Defendant E and F's interference with the business of January 4, 201.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on October 8, 2010, the charge of interference with the business of the defendant A and E (the part of innocence part in the original judgment) as of October 8, 2010, the defendant A may sufficiently recognize that at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant A formed a competitive relationship with the other defendants found guilty of this part of the facts charged, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant E interfered with the business by force, such as the facts charged in this part.
(B) In full view of Defendant E and F’s business obstruction on January 4, 201 (Article 2 of the lower judgment’s acquittal part) and the background, method, etc. of the instant crime, the Defendants’ instant crime cannot be deemed as unlawful by an act beyond the permissible level in light of social norms.
(C) In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on October 29, 2010, the notice of prohibition of assembly of this case is sufficiently recognized to have been delivered lawfully.
(2) Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A, C, D, and H: 4 months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, Defendant B, F, and I: each sentence of imprisonment, two months of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, Defendant E: 10 months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, and one million won of fine in case of Defendant G) are deemed to be too unreasonable.
B. Defendants (1) misunderstanding of facts and legal principles (A) and obstructing the Defendants’ activities on August 31, 2010 and September 1, 2010 (as indicated in the lower judgment, part 1082 of the order 201 of the lower judgment), obstructing the Defendants’ activities on January 28, 2011 (part 117 of the order 2011 of the lower judgment), and Defendant B’s interference with the duties on January 14, 2011 (part 1158 of the order 2011 of the lower judgment), do not constitute the elements for obstructing the Defendants’ activities.
2) The Defendants’ act, as a part of lawful assembly and demonstration, is dismissed as it constitutes a justifiable act.
(B) Defendant I’s victim AI and AJ