업무방해등
1. The part concerning the crime No. 1-B of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
2. The crime of subparagraph 1-B of the judgment of the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not commit a crime identical to the facts stated in the lower judgment.
B. Even if the charges of this case were to be found guilty, the sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and a fine of KRW 1,000,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, the Defendant, who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the “compicing colon,” etc., and determined a sentence within the scope of the term of punishment for which mitigation was required under Articles 10(2) and 10(1) of the Criminal Act, but the court of the lower judgment omitted the sentence regarding the crime No. 1(b) of the judgment of the lower court, thereby making it impossible to maintain this part.
However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's argument of misunderstanding of facts and the remaining grounds for sentencing except the crime No. 1-B as stated in the judgment of the court are still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in this regard.
B. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the victims and witnesses made a detailed statement in an investigative agency about the circumstances before and after each of the crimes of this case, ② the victims have no reason to gather the defendant, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed each of the crimes against the victims as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the court below. Accordingly, this part of the defendant’s assertion
(c)
As to the unfair argument of sentencing regarding the remaining part of the crime except for the crime No. 1-B, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime contingently in a state of mental and physical weakness due to the “compicing illness”, etc.