재물손괴등
All of the judgment of the court below in 1, 2, 4 and the judgment of the court below in 3 are reversed.
A fine shall be imposed on the defendant 7,000.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On the judgment of the court below of first instance, the defendant suffered property damage and damage (the mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing) and the defendant obtained permission from the AL executive secretary who regards the business of the association on behalf of the president of the reconstruction association, which is the actual building owner of the building in Daejeon Jung-gu, on behalf of the president of the reconstruction association, which is the main building owner of the building in Daejeon-gu, and made an indication that the right of retention is being exercised as soon as possible on the corridor of the building in this case, and made an approach to the 3rd floor entrance of the building in this case.
In the corridor of the building of this case, it is marked as soon as possible that it is while exercising the right of retention, and it is easy to restore the emergency stairs and the entrance door of the third floor of the building of this case to the original state. Thus, it does not constitute damage to property.
B) The Defendant, while occupying the entire building of this case, was exercising the right of retention. However, on the ground that the Defendant was included in the building No. 301, the Defendant reported to the police, and entered the building No. 301 with the police, and thus, the Defendant did not constitute a crime of intrusion on the structure. 2) The sentence of the lower judgment on unreasonable sentencing (a fine of two million won) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. On the judgment of the court below of the second instance, E, F, G, and H (hereinafter “instant workers”) was changed to AX on June 7, 2013, not the Defendant, and only I (or N, an operator,) who was the former representative director of the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D for convenience”).
As the period during which the instant worker was not paid wages, the Defendant and I had a management right and dispute between the Defendant and I, and as such, I did not properly transfer and take over the instant work to the Defendant, there was no substantial labor contract relationship between the Defendant and the instant worker.
C. On the judgment of the court below of the fourth instance, the defendant (the factual error) is not more than 201 of Daejeon Jung-gu AC apartment.