[폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(야간·공동상해)·업무방해·공무상표시무효][공2006.11.15.(262),1942]
Whether the effectiveness of the provisional disposition for prohibition of entry in case of entry with the approval of the provisional disposition creditor for the structure, etc. subject to the provisional disposition for prohibition of entry can be undermined (negative)
The provisional disposition prohibiting entry to a structure against the will of the creditor of the provisional disposition is prohibited by its nature, so even though such purport is not specified in the decision of provisional disposition or the execution of such decision, it cannot be said that the entry does not impair the effectiveness of the indication of provisional disposition prohibiting entry when entering the structure, etc. with the consent of the creditor of the provisional disposition.
Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act
Defendant 1 and three others
Prosecutor
Attorneys Kim Young-deok et al.
Ulsan District Court Decision 2006No346 decided June 30, 2006
The appeal is dismissed.
1. As to the invalidity of indication in the line of duty
The provisional disposition prohibiting entry to a structure against the will of the creditor of the provisional disposition is prohibited by its nature, so even though such purport is not specified in the decision of provisional disposition or the execution of such decision, it cannot be said that the entry does not impair the effectiveness of the indication of provisional disposition prohibiting entry when entering the structure, etc. with the consent of the creditor of the provisional disposition.
In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the Defendants and the Nonindicted Party, the provisional debtor, on the ground that they entered the company with the permission of the company, which is the provisional disposition creditor, on the ground that they got into the company, is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of invalidation of indication
2. As to interference with business
In light of the records, the court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant as to the obstruction of business on June 27, 2005 among the facts charged in this case on the ground that it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone as to the degree that it could cause harm to the company's security services or production affairs, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)