폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes of Articles 1 and 2 of the decision of the court below.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant 1’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine on June 20, 201, the instant business entity’s parking lot is not distinguishable from the surrounding construction site due to the lack of fences around the instant business entity’s parking lot, and thus, it cannot be deemed as “a summary of the building” of the building.
In addition, the Defendant did not infringe upon the building parking lot F, etc. of the instant project team by voluntarily entering the building parking lot of the instant project team through the open door to the Navy, but did not intend to intrude into the building.
With respect to interference with the business of June 20, 201, the act by the defendant, such as moving out relief at the parking lot, can not be deemed as a threat of interference with business, and there was no danger of interference with business since it is after the completion of business.
With regard to the obstruction of performance of official duties against L on April 6, 2012, the police officer's restraint of L from the Defendant did not meet the requirements of Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and the Defendant's act of breabing L does not constitute assault by the intention of the obstruction of official duties or by the active acting act without the intention of the obstruction of official duties.
With respect to the obstruction of performance of official duties against M on November 14, 2012, the written indictment states that the defendant prevented the operation of ready-mixed vehicles that the defendant intends to enter the construction site and was subject to restraint to police officers M. However, without changing the written indictment, the court below acknowledged the criminal facts that the defendant was subject to restraint, causing disadvantages to the defendant's right of defense, and did not meet the requirements under Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and the act of restraint of M did not constitute assault by the defendant without the intention of the obstruction of official duties or by the active operation.
As to the obstruction of performance of official duties against N andO on November 15, 2012, N andO are regulated by police officers.