업무방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants are innocent.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not obstruct the victim's business by avoiding disturbance due to the addition of a locker at the entrance of the party room operated by the victim, or the addition of a locker in the party room and its equipment outside the party room, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.
B. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case’s unreasonable sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (a fine of one million won for each of the defendants) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. At around 14:30 on February 23, 2010, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the victim’s party room business operation by force of approximately 30 minutes, such as making customers at the scene of the disturbance, such as entering the party room for the operation of the victim E in the first floor of the D-U.S., Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seoul, and having the entrance lock devices and equipment outside the party room, leaving the party room outside the party room, etc.
B. Although the Defendants were consistently visiting the party room at the same time from the investigative agency to the court of this case, the Defendants denied that there was no act of attaching the locking device of the party room or carrying the house and fixtures outside the party room.
On the other hand, the victim stated in the court below's decision and the investigative agency that the Defendants and other employees of the party in this case committed an act as stated in the facts charged in this case, such as leaving the party room and leaving the party room fixtures outside the party room. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record are as follows. ① At the time, the Defendants' employer and the lessee of the party room in this case asserted that the house period in the party room in this case was owned by the above company, and thus the Defendants damaged the party room in the party room or out of the party room.