업무방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case shall be dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding that the Defendant, while staying at the site of this case, taken photographs of the site and excavated it into the ground, did not interfere with construction work by force as stated in the holding of the court below. However, in the situation where the Defendant’s residential area was at the bottom of a hushes, it cannot be deemed as going against the social rules, and thus, it constitutes a justifiable act, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
B. Legal principles have clarified that the defendant has consented to each investigation report submitted as evidence by misunderstanding the legal principles, and each investigation report above is not admissible in accordance with Article 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the filing of the records of the case is contrary to the principle of indictment in Japan.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances revealed by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the victim left the wall of this case from the investigative agency to the court below to the court of the court below, and directly observed the witness to the site of this case by scoping the wall of this case and scoping the water towards the site of this case.
consistently stated (Evidence No. 15, No. 128, 129 of the record of the trial), 2. The wall was stored at the site at the time.
F also, in the court of the court below, the defendant laid down the above fence, and spread water on the side of the defendant's work in Hosk, and the defendant stated to the effect that he referred to the same person as the victim in the dispute with the victim should work (the trial record No. 87, 93, 94, 98) and made a statement consistent with the victim's statement, which can be seen as a third party by receiving daily allowances from the service company.