업무방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the date on which the Defendant installed a container as stated in the facts charged in the instant case is not on September 5, 2013, but on September 3, 2013, the land of this case was still owned by the Defendant; and (b) E is transferred to acquire the ownership of the land of this case; (c) thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged in the instant case.
2. The judgment of the court below also has the same assertion as the above reasons for appeal, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail under the title "the judgment on the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion". In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and it shall not be deemed that there is an error of law that misleads the facts and affects the conclusion of the judgment as alleged in the grounds for appeal of this case.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the costs of the trial by the court below and the party shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Articles 191 (1), 190 (1) and
[However, Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act in the application of the judgment of the court below are clear that the phrase “Article 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)” is a clerical error under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act. Thus, it shall be corrected ex officio under Article 25(1)