공무집행방해등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the intrusion into a structure 876 high group of 2017 high group of 2017 high group of 1017 high group of 1016 high group of 2017 high group of 1565 high group of 2017 high group of 2017 high group of 2017 high group of 1565 high group of 201 high group of 2016 high group of 2016 high group of 1565 on the ground of conviction, but the said
Therefore, the defendant still has the right to K pharmacy, and the above facts charged are not guilty.
In relation to the special intimidation part against AG among the 2017 Highest 1141 of Part 2017, the defendant does not have the same act as the above facts charged.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2017 high group 1016 high group 1016 high group 2017 high group 2 months imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes other than the above crimes, 1 year and 6 months, and 1 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, (1) the lower court stated in its reasoning concerning the intrusion of a structure 876 high group of 2017 high group of 2017 high group of 1017 high group of 1016 high group of 2017 high group of 1565 high group of 2017 high group of 1565 high group of 2017, and the following additional circumstances recognized by the record are added: (a) from December 14, 2016 under the agreement between the Defendant and J, K pharmacy was the place managed by J; and (b) drugs and articles located within K pharmacy were owned by J or at least possessed by J and the Defendant.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the act of entering the K pharmacy at the time after December 14, 2016 without the J's permission is a theft, the act of taking away goods existing in the K pharmacy, and the act of taking away goods existing in the K pharmacy constitutes an act of damaging property, and there is no error of mistake as alleged by the defendant.
① There is a statement of the witness BH as evidence consistent with the Defendant’s assertion, but BH is the Defendant.