폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. 1) Defendant A did not have any misunderstanding of facts as to the victim C’s excessive work, etc. in collaboration with B, as described in paragraph 1 of the facts charged in the 2015 Highest 166 case.
2) Defendant D and E did not agree with the victim F’s bucks, such as the charge No. 2 in the 2015 Godan 166 case.
3) Since the victim C did not engage in business at the time stated in the 2015 senior group 166 charges of the case, the Defendants did not interfere with the business of the victim C.
4) Defendant D did not inflict an injury on the victim V, such as as indicated in the facts charged in the 2015 Highest 1147 case.
B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for April, a suspended sentence of one year, and Defendant D: fine of 1.5 million won) against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the charge No. 166 of the 2015 High Order No. 166 case, i.e., the victim C and F, up to the court of the lower court’s trial, consistently stated that the Defendant A suffered damage, such as (i) the victim C and F, by taking the victim C and F into his hand, the fruit plate he displayed by the victim C up to the trial of the lower court, and (ii) the Defendant A committed a crime jointly with the Defendant A.
B Recognizing the facts charged in the lower court, the Defendant A also recognized the fact that he had set up the victim’s property jointly with the victim’s Department C at three to four times in the large examination of the victim’s Department C at the police station: ④ Even based on the video (Evidence No. 25) taken on September 4, 2014, Defendant A had a considerable amount of apologys over the victim’s day board, and it is confirmed that he/she had some of the apologys under his/her supervision. In full view of the fact that Defendant A damaged the victim’s property jointly with the victim’s property as described in Article 16 of the facts charged in the 2015 High Order No. 166 case, it is sufficiently recognized.
2) As to the facts charged in the 2015 High Order 166 cases, the lower court’s judgment on Article 2 of the charges.