폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동건조물침입)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant entered a construction site to prevent illegal acts in the Daeyang Industrial Planning Co., Ltd., Ltd., a non-licensed construction contractor (hereinafter “Large Industrial Planning”) as an employee of the Daeyang Industrial Complex Improvement and Development Project Planning Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Large Industrial Planning”).
It is only to move containers owned by the planning industry and install fences, and there has not been any interference with the victim's duties, which is the director of the field center of the large industry.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the crime of interference with the business of the defendant is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the victim's business as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.
Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts.
A. On July 25, 2012, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport prepared a certificate of confirmation that, on each service contract entered into with the Vietnam Development Co., Ltd. or the Seodaemun-gu Land Development Co., Ltd., the duty of supervision was not explicitly included in the content of the services of the Daemun Industrial Planning. Furthermore, on July 25, 2012, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport prepared a certificate of confirmation that, as the implementer of the said construction site, the duty of supervision was not fully paid.
In addition, as of September 12, 2012, the Alternative Industrial Planning entered into an agreement on the land development project and complex development project in the construction site, but failed to perform the obligations under the agreement, and thereafter, concluded a sales contract with the land development company and the above construction site on April 3, 2014 by setting the sales price as KRW 1.3 million per square, but the sales contract was not fully paid, and Article 3 of the said agreement is the “this is.”