권리행사방해등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the statement of the lower court’s witness F’s investigative agency on the charge that “the Defendant changed the entrance door 204 as stated in the instant facts charged by leaving the repair hole of keys around May 8, 2017” is reliable; and (b) the person who will replace the studio 204 with the above studio 204 with the costs in light of the empirical rule should be deemed the Defendant as the owner; (c) according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s exercise of rights by destroying the above studio 204, the Defendant owned by the victim without the victim D’s consent as indicated in the instant facts charged; and (d) the fact that the above studio 204 infringed with the above studio 204.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there was no proof of criminal facts.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of the Yansan-gu C Studio 204, Jeonju-si, and the victim D was a person residing in the above 204.
1) On May 8, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the exercise of rights: (a) replaced the fingers installed under the above 204 without the victim’s permission on the ground that the victim did not pay monthly rent, electricity, gas gas, etc. before the above 204; and (b) prevented the victim from entering the above 204.
As a result, the defendant damaged the fishing village owned by the defendant, thereby hindering the victim's exercise of rights.
2) On May 8, 2017, the Defendant intrudes into the said 204 heading room without the victim’s permission, and takes out household goods, etc. owned by the victim.
In addition, the above studio was moved to the underground.
Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence.
B. The lower court, while explaining in detail the grounds for the determination of the facts charged in the instant case, stated in F’s investigative agency that seems consistent with the facts charged in the instant case.