업무방해등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months, but it shall be one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. We examine both the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion.
The crime of this case was committed by force by the Defendants for about 49 days, and at the same time interfered with the public traffic of the victim company. In light of the details and period of the crime, the liability for the crime was not provided against the Defendants, and the Defendants did not agree with the victim company, and the circumstances that are disadvantageous to the Defendants are recognized.
However, the defendants were led to the confession of all the crimes of this case, and the defendants committed the crime of this case in the course of minimizing their damage among disputes over the construction cost arising between the victim company and the victim company. Although the road of this case falls under the "land" provided for general traffic, in light of the form of land, etc., the defendants' operation company or the victim company deposited KRW 5,00,000 to recover the victim company's damage, and the defendants deposited KRW 5,00,000 to recover the victim company's damage. The defendants did not have any history of punishment for the same crime before the crime of this case was committed, and there seems to be clear social relation between the defendants, such as the defendants' family members and the defendant's family members, and considering the circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendants' age, happiness, environment, etc., the court below's punishment against the defendants is too unfair.
Therefore, the defendants' improper assertion of sentencing is justified, and the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is based on Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the defendants' appeal is reasonable.