폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동퇴거불응)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendants entered the church of this case for the purpose of interfering with the worship and resolved to leave and leave the church conference around October 7, 2014 to the Defendants. Thus, the Defendants were forced to leave the church as of October 7, 2014.
Since it is legitimate to make the Gu, there is a crime of non-compliance with the withdrawal of the Defendants who refuse to leave.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous.
2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that Defendant A is the FIS and the head of the child care center, Defendant B is the head of the FIS association, Defendant C is the employee of the private teaching institute, Defendant C is the FIS association, Defendant D is the employee of the FIS association, Defendant D is the employee of the FIS association, Defendant A and Defendant D is the employee of the FIS association, Defendant A and Defendant D are the mother and mother, and the victim G (the age of 59, South) is the employee of the current FI.
On December 21, 2014, around 10:45, the Defendants entered the FIE distribution of the FIE in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu and demanded the victim to request the victim to leave from the course of towing. However, the Defendants did not comply with the request and filed a report by the victim at around 12:10 on the same day and filed a report by the victim, and the police officer arrived without justifiable grounds.
The Gu refused to comply with the Gu.
3. The judgment of the court below is that the church belongs to the collective ownership of the members, and all the members have the right to use and profit from the church, and the access to the church for the worship of the members is not, in principle, limited unless it is evident that the church obstructs the worship of other members, and thereby harming the peace of the church. The defendants are entitled to enter the F church for the worship as the believers of the F church, and it cannot be restricted to the extent that it is not sufficient to interfere with the worship. It is recognized that there is a legal dispute between Defendant A, etc. and G, who is the representative of the F church, but only on the ground of the above circumstances.