업무방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.
1. According to the records subject to the trial of the political party, the prosecutor prosecuted the obstruction of business as of July 2012 and September 19, 2012, and each of these facts charged are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. The court below found the defendant guilty as to the obstruction of business as of September 19, 2012, and acquitted the obstruction of business as of July 2012.
The prosecutor did not appeal against this, and only the defendants filed an appeal against the conviction.
Therefore, the part of acquittal, which was not appealed by a prosecutor, is separate and finalized by the expiration of the period of appeal, and the scope of trial at the trial is limited to the part of the judgment below's conviction (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Do1402, Jan. 21, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10985, Nov. 25, 2010). This part of the judgment at the trial is limited to the part of the judgment below.
2. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty even though the Defendants did not instruct the residents to obstruct the construction work is erroneous in misconception of facts.
3. Determination
A. The Defendants of the facts charged of this case are co-representatives of the “Local Residents Support Committee against the Establishment of the GG church” as residents living near Busan Island, which is the place where the victim E-G church seeks to build a new church.
At around 08:30 on September 19, 2012, Defendants jointly interfered with the building work of the victim E church by force by allowing residents living near the construction site to sit at the entrance of the construction site and not to enter the construction vehicle.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground of the evidence indicated in its holding.
C. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below's judgment and the court below's judgment, the defendants are comprised of neighboring residents who oppose the construction of the damaged church.