업무방해등
All of the appeals by the prosecutor and the defendants against the defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (Defendant A, B, C, D, and G are limited to the above Defendants)
The Defendants were seated on the outer corridor of the event site in which the conversation with the president was scheduled, did not attempt to enter or enter the event site, and did not interfere with or interfere with the people entering the event site. As such, there was an intentional obstruction or force on the part of the Defendants.
It is difficult to see it.
In addition, the Defendants committed the instant act for the normalization and the realization of the fair broadcast rather than for private interest; the obligation to realize the fair broadcast is a mission given to the members of the K under the Broadcasting Act and the collective agreement; the Defendants was merely a part of the mission outside the venue of the event; the Defendants did not inflict injury or have inflicted violence on the Defendants in the instant process; the Defendants committed the instant act as a tool for delivering non-Confidence opinions on the victims to normalize them in the situation where the broadcasting service is not completed due to the refusal of production; the victims were actually dismissed on the grounds that they damaged the fair broadcast and put them in the state of drinking; and the legitimacy of the dismissal disposition was confirmed through the court ruling. In light of the above, the Defendants’ act is permissible in light of the social norms, and it does not violate the rules, and thus, the illegality is excluded under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.
2) The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (in its entirety, KRW 10 million against Defendant A, KRW 7 million against Defendant B, and KRW 5 million against each of the Defendants D, E, F, G, and H) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles on Defendant A, B, C, D, and G’s assertion.