업무방해등
Of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the defendant A and B and the part not guilty against the defendant C shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant .
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Defendant
A and B (unfair sentencing on the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below) The sentence imposed by the court below on the above Defendants (the fine of three million won is imposed on the above Defendants A and the fine of one million won is imposed on the Defendants B) is too unreasonable.
The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the original court) determined that there is insufficient evidence to prove the fact that the Defendants could identify the victim, or that there was a lack of evidence to indicate specific facts likely to undermine the
However, in full view of the contents of the printed matter distributed by the Defendants, the place where the printed matter was distributed, and the other party, etc., it should be deemed that the indication was sufficiently recognizable to the extent that the Defendants could have become aware of the identity of the victim. The details stated by the Defendants include the statement of specific facts beyond the simple expression of opinion, and the Defendants’ defamation is sufficient to prove all of the facts charged, but there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment below
In the first instance of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor added “the employees of the headquarters and the head office of the agricultural cooperative” to “public” in the second instance of the second instance of the judgment of the court below, and added to “patently” and “the employees of the head office of the Korean bank and the citizens” in the second instance of the judgment of the court below, and applied for amendments to an amendment to an amendment to an indictment with the following modified facts charged. Since this court permitted this, the portion of the judgment of the court below’
【Revised Indictment】
A. On February 27, 2014, the Defendants’ employees of the citizens’ and the head office of the Nonghyup headquarters of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on February 27, 2014 (hereinafter “Seo-gu sales agent”) conducted inspections to the effect that “The sales agent’s discount rate was low and the Defendants used the expression at the time of the preparation of the printed materials, and that the price is lower due to the increase