폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the photograph taken out by the court below as evidence of guilt is illegally collected and provided in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act in the absence or tear of CCTV installation signboards. The video files are inadmissible as they are submitted by investigation agencies to the contractor who is not a CCTV installation manager in violation of Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act and seized them.
(2) The length and the old coast of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion) does not correspond to the summary of the building of the agency.
(3) On the ground that the Defendant participated in the strong life peace team, and went through the string of the time the police began to move those who were seated on the road, there was intention to interfere with the business.
The crime of interference with business or the crime of interference with business cannot be deemed to have been exercised.
In addition, a road in front of the front of the project team is a place where the center line is reduced to a yellow solid line and the left turn is prohibited because it is installed by means of plastic sealing, and the front of the project team is the original river site. Since the naval Headquarters established a road access after changing the form and quality without permission from the river management agency, the operation of a vehicle that passed an illegal and illegal access road to the left left at the center be deemed as violating the Road Traffic Act and the River Act, etc., and thus, the operation of the vehicle is not a duty of protection
Furthermore, since the other party whose duties are obstructed by the act of the defendant is only a driver of ready-mixed vehicles, it cannot be applied to the interference with business with the business against the Daelim Industry Co., Ltd., a contractor, and at the time, the vehicle at the time was allowed to have access through other entrance, so it cannot be deemed that there was a danger of interference with business, and the act of the defendant is done.