업무방해등
All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the evidence of the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, Defendant G and H may sufficiently recognize the fact that the cargo vehicle driven by AE in collusion with Defendant A, such as the facts charged, was damaged by the driver’s seat of the cargo vehicle driven by AE, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehension of legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.
B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: fine of KRW 2 million, Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, and H: each fine of KRW 1 million) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. The summary of the facts charged [the defendant G and H's violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (damage, etc. to common property)] from around 18:15 on October 5, 2016 to from around 18:28, the defendants discovered the cargo chip of AF chip in front of AD located in Young-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and from around 18:28 on October 5, 2016, the AE driving to enter the Center. The defendant G prevents the cargo chip from driving by blocking the cargo chip from driving by hand. The defendant H prevents the cargo chip from driving after the cargo chip. The defendant H chip from driving 6 times. The driver chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip and chip chip chip chip from around 18:28, 2016.
As a result, Defendant G and H jointly damaged the cargo vehicle in KRW 1,203,884.
B. According to the records of the judgment of the court below, although it is acknowledged that the members of the cargo solidarity, including the defendant G and H, suspended the AE driver's cargo vehicle, it appears to have been the purpose of realizing the refusal of transportation by the members of the above cargo solidarity, and it was suspended for the purpose of destroying the above cargo vehicle.
2. AE is difficult to see the vehicle after the vehicle stops by Defendant G and H in the court of original instance.