폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)등
1. Of the judgment of the court below, the part against Defendant A and the guilty part against Defendant C shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A, C.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant A1’s infringement of the effect of a mistake of real estate enforcement, Defendant A is the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H building (hereinafter “instant building”).
(2) The lower court’s imprisonment with labor for 10 months is unreasonable. 2) There was no fact that the locking device under 406 was either rescinded or invaded by 406.
B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) Defendant D solely installed an entrance with respect to the destruction of and damage to common property; (b) Defendant C sent approximately KRW 20,000 for the purpose of crime prevention after the entrance was installed; and there was no conspiracy to open an entrance. ② As to infringement of the effect of compulsory execution against real estate, Defendant C was unaware of the fact that the entrance was delivered to Defendant C by compulsory execution against the 406th of the instant building; (c) Defendant C opened an entrance for the purpose of receiving the construction cost against the 3rd floor of the instant building and stayed to the extent of 406 of the instant building where the person did not live; and (d) there was no criminal intent for infringement of the effect of compulsory execution against real estate, and thus, there was no unfair sentencing sentence (two months in imprisonment).
C. As to the erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant D’s failure to function as the entrance door due to corrosion, etc., Defendant D’s construction and repair of a steel door after the entrance door of the first floor of the instant building was inevitable due to concerns over the safety of residents, and there was no thought that the utility of the instant building was harmed, and thus, Defendant D’s above act constitutes a justifiable act for the safety of residents and for the sake of the safety of residents. (2) The lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, six months of suspension of execution, one year of suspension of execution) is unreasonable.
(1) According to the evidence, such as the testimony of the defendant C, the defendant C replaced the locking system of the fireworks store on the first floor of the instant building with the alteration of the victim G.