폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)등
All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the court below (the sentence of a fine of 5 million won, Defendant B, C, and D): The sentence of a fine of 5 million won, Defendant B, C, and D is too unhued and unreasonable.
B. The Defendants (misunderstanding of facts) joint property damage portion (Defendant A, C, and D) indirectly participated in the act of cutting the steel door and leaving the sculing from the sculing, and thereafter, disincing the iron door which was inevitably destroyed to remove the danger and condition and to ensure the safety, and it constitutes the most appropriate means to ensure safety, and thus constitutes a justifiable act.
2) Defendants (Defendant A, B), who already refused joint eviction and interfere with business affairs, entered the instant Switzerland after the replacement program for the biobroadcasting was finalized, and the cause for which the replacement program was finalized was previously “Refusal to provide labor” by other employees participating in the strike activity in the instant Switzerland’s “subordination room” (this refusal does not constitute a crime of interference with business unless there was evidence on the pre-employment of the strike activity in the Supreme Court precedents). Accordingly, Defendants cannot accept the request by the vice president, etc. on the premise of the pre-employment, and even if Defendants’ act was accompanied by the strike, it is justifiable that the Defendants’ act constitutes the occupational occupation in the area of co-existence part of the strike.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion in the part on “2. judgment” of the judgment below 7th, and rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail. If the above explanation is compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, the court below’s judgment is just and there is an error of law of misunderstanding of facts.
It does not seem that it does not appear.
Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is justified.