명예훼손등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 6 million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Of the judgment of the court below 1, the part of the charge of obstruction of business is not interfered with the cleaning business of the victim because the defendant had the key of the warehouse containing cleaning tools as well as the victim D, and each defamation does not obstruct the cleaning business of the victim, and the insult is dismissed in line with the public interest.
2) Of the judgment of the court below of the second instance, the damage of property was caused by a flicker in the vehicle form, and there was no damage to the extent that it was damaged. The defendant's hand constitutes an emergency escape act to avoid danger in the situation where the defendant's hand is blicker, and thus the illegality is dismissed.
3) Of the judgment of the court below No. 2, the part of the judgment of the court below is nothing more than that of an injury, and the defendant does not assault the victim's face by drinking.
B. Sentencing of the judgment below (the judgment of the court of first instance: the fine of KRW 3 million; the fine of KRW 2 million: the fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of each of the above appeals cases.
Each of the crimes committed by the lower judgment convicting the Defendant is in a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the lower judgment is no longer maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
3. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. As to the judgment of the court below 1, the Defendant put the cleaning tool into the warehouse for the purpose of preventing the victim D from cleaning in the police room, among the facts charged in this case.