폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)등
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Defendant
A and B Each fine of KRW 5,000,000, Defendant C shall be punished by fine of KRW 3,000.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is a person employed by "G" as a security business chain, and constitutes "security guard" as referred to in the Security Industry Act.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendants C, etc. on the violation of the Security Services Industry Act on the ground that they do not constitute “security guard” is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts.
B. The lower court’s respective sentence against the Defendants (the Defendant A and B’s respective fines of KRW 3 million, and the Defendant C’s fine of KRW 2 million) is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) The summary of the charge of misunderstanding the facts charged (A) Defendant A and B did not cause the security guards to commit any act beyond the scope of the security service, but the Defendant A and B conspired with the Defendant C, K, L, R, S, T, U,V, and W, which is a security guard, to cause the security guards to commit any act beyond the scope of the security service by causing the scope of the service, as described in paragraph (1) of the facts charged in the judgment below.
(B) Although Defendant C’s security guards did not commit any act deviating from the duty of security, such as exerting authority over others or exercising physical power in performing their duties, Defendant C’s crime No. 2 in the judgment of the court below, jointly with Defendant A, B and H, K, L, R, S, S, T, U,V, W, and M, as described in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, jointly with K, L, R, S, T, U,V, and W.
As described in the paragraph, the act was committed beyond the scope of the security service, such as inflicting injury on X and Y.
(2) Article 28(2)6 of the Security Services Industry Act provides that “a person who, in violation of Article 15-2(2) of the Act, has caused security guards to perform acts beyond the scope of the security service,” and Article 28(5) of the same Act goes beyond the scope of the security service in violation of Article 15-2(1) of the Act.