특수절도등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The judgment of the court below on the ground of appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as follows.
A. With regard to the interference with each business, the victim G was merely the most lessee and the victim G actually leased the “F private letter” as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant private letter”) from E.
In addition, even if a person damaged by domestic affairs is a tenant, he/she cannot be viewed as a "business" which is worth protecting the victim by interference with his/her business, since he/she took the instant friendship by force from the defendant A, who is a partner of the instant trade around November 9, 2012, and let the victim operate it without the above defendant's consent. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a "business" which is worth protecting the victim's friendship or operational affairs by interference with his/her business.
B. Regarding special larceny, 6.80,00 won in cash, which the Defendants stolen, is not the victim's property but the property jointly kept by Defendant A and E, and cannot be deemed to constitute "other's property" which is the object of larceny.
(c)
With regard to the point of assault, Defendant A merely imprisoned the body of the said victim with the meaning of "A" in the calculation team, and did not see the body of the said victim as his hand.
2. Determination
A. 1) First of all, the argument that the victim's interference with each of the duties is excessive to the tenant. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the victim leased the instant private letter in the first investigation conducted by the police at the time of the police at the cost of KRW 10 million in monthly rent of KRW 10 million.
On July 31, 2012, 201, stating the same purport in the statement, a copy of the contract for the lease of a commercial building was submitted (in the investigation record 13,25 pages), and in the court below’s appearance as a witness, the counsel’s question whether the deposit for the lease of a private letter or the private letter or the private letter or the private letter or the private letter or the private letter or the