업무방해등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months.
However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine and did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
① In relation to the obstruction of business, the Defendant’s act is a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules and regulations, on the ground that the Defendant made a legitimate objection against “the conduct of business by the victim with respect to the display of a Stick for Parking Violations”.
(2) With regard to the offense of insult, the Defendant did not have made the victim take the same bath as the facts charged in the instant case.
However, although there was a fact that “the head of the guearia” said, it did not have the intention to insult the victim as it did the mixed standard.
(3) In relation to the occupation of the leader of property, the defendant has never supported the entrance door of the guard room.
B. In light of the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant case’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the lower court’s punishment of two months of imprisonment, which the lower court decided against the Defendant, is too unreasonable.
2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, in particular, the evidence, E, F, and G statements: (i) the defendant took a bath for the victim on the ground that he/she had posted a Stick for violating parking regulations on his/her own vehicle; (ii) the residents living in the apartment of this case had observed the Defendant’s bath and disturbance for a considerable period of time so that they could not perform their normal duties concerning the guard of the victim; (iii) the Defendant had observed the Defendant’s humiliation and disturbance; (iv) the police officer dispatched to the site had prevented the Defendant; (iii) the Defendant neglected it, followed the Defendant’s continuous insult and disturbance; and (iv) the Defendant was sent to the site with the entrance of the guard room.