208No122 A. Injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties

208No291 (Consolidation)

208No337 (Joinderment of Group, Deadly Weapons, etc.)

(c) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(Destruction, etc. of Property, such as Group, Deadly Weapons)

(d) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(Intrusion upon Residence, such as a group or deadly weapon)

(e) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(Assaults, deadly Weapons, etc.)

(f) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(Joint Injury)

(g) Name of the crime of injury recognized: Punishment of violence, etc.;

violation of the law (joint injury)

(h) Performance of official duties;

(i) General traffic obstruction;

(j) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

(k) Fire prevention against general goods;

(l) Interference with business;

1. A, B, C, D, Ma, F, g, A, children, tea, car, other

Daejeon Daejeon Moduk-gu

Defendant 1, the appellant, and the Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Defense Counsel

Daejeon District Court Decision 2007Gohap295, 415 (Joint Judgment) decided February 19, 2008

Daejeon District Court Decision 207Ma2209, 2248 decided April 29, 2008

(Joint) 285 (Joint), 2264 (Joint), 2366 (Joint), 2415 (Joint), 208 order

19 (Consolidation), 37 (Consolidation), 170 (Consolidation), 279 (Consolidation) Judgment

- Cheongju District Court Decision 3 Cheongju District Court Decision 2007 Godan233, 225 (Joint) decided May 1, 2008;

208 Highest 17 (Joint), 41 (Joint) Judgment

Commission Decision 208. 6 August 2008

1. The guilty part among the part of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment of the second instance, the part of the judgment of the second instance, and the part of the conviction among the part of the judgment of the third instance, and the part of the judgment of the first instance, shall be reversed.

Defendant Cho 00 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in the judgment of the court of first instance and the crimes listed in the judgment of the court of first instance listed in the judgment of the court of first instance, for the crimes listed in the annexed Table 1, 2, 3, 11 or 15 among the crimes listed in the judgment of the court of first instance, for the crimes listed in the annexed Table 2 (2) No. 1, 2, 3, 11 or 15, for the crimes listed in the annexed Table 3 (1), for the crimes listed in the annexed Table 1, 2, or 3 at the time listed in the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "crimes committed before the judgment of July 6, 207"), for the crimes listed in the annexed Table 3 (1) No. 4 or 8, 10, 13 or 4 of the annexed Table 1, for the crimes listed in the judgment of first instance, for the crimes listed in the annexed Table 3 (1 to No. 4) 6).

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court, and the 99 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the second instance shall be included in the sentence to "the crime committed after the final and conclusive judgment of July 6, 2007".

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of punishment for ‘crimes committed before the final and conclusive judgment of July 6, 2007' shall be suspended.

2. Appeal against the prosecutor's maximum 00 defendant and decision of the court of first instance against the defendant's assistance0

The appeal against each acquittal portion shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 100 (1) mistake of facts

(1) Crimes under each judgment of the first instance court shall be committed.

(2) Of the judgment of the court of first instance on July 18, 2007, the sentencing division (2) in the sentencing division (as to the judgment of the court of first instance Nos. 2 and 3), with respect to the obstruction of ordinary traffic and the obstruction of business.

B. Prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts against Defendant Cho Jong-soo (A)

(1) The non-guilty part of the judgment of the first instance court in the judgment (the victim Kim Il-young, Lee △△△, this △△△△, this*, the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (the damage of property, such as group, deadly weapons, etc.) and the part not guilty for the reasons) and the part not guilty.

② In the judgment of the first instance court, the acquitted portion (from July 26, 2007 to July 27, 2007 to the point of obstruction of anti-traffic), the sentencing and light (as to each judgment of the first instance), (b) the sentencing and light (as to each judgment of the first instance), the sentencing and light (as to the judgment of the first instance court, the first instance court) on the maximum 00 of the accused.

2. Determination

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts against Defendant 100 portion (1)

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, including the statements of the victims, the first instance court is fully acceptable to find the Defendant guilty of joint injury, obstruction of performance of official duties, injury, and obstruction of business with respect to the Defendant Defendant 10 as stated in its reasoning. In addition, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the Defendant 100 conspired with the members of the CJ-based ship on July 18, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “CJ-based ship”) in collusion with the members of the CJ-based ship on July 18, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “CJ-based ship”) and interfere with the transportation of the Defendant 3JS GLS corporation, and it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant 10 interfered with the business of selective transportation of the “CJS LS corporation.”

(2) Summary of the facts charged (including the acquittal part of the reasoning) in the judgment of the first instance court of Article 2 of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of facts (A)

Defendant 1, in collusion with other cargo joint members, in the office of management of the network rest between 50 and 20:10 on October 20, 2007, and between 19:50 on the same day and 20:0 on October 20, 2007, Defendant 1, who is a management employee, △△, Kim.

●, 이△△, 이★★, 고◎◎, 한⊙⊙을 폭행하여 상해를 가하고, ② 2007. 10. 20. 19 : 50경 흉기인 곡괭이, 빠루 등으로 2층 관리사무실 출입문과 사무실 집기 시가 합계 2, 389만 원 상당을 손괴하고, ③ 2007. 10. 20. 19 : 10경부터 같은 날 20 : 10경까지 위와 같은 위력을 행사하여 피해자 망향물산주식회사 운영의 휴게소 물품판매 업무, 한국관 식당영업 업무 등을 방해하였다 .

2) According to the reasoning of the court of first instance, the court of first instance held on October 20, 207, 2007, "1. 20: 1. Maro-gu, Seoul University decided on October 20, 2007, members of the cargo-related branch office and members who were staying home with tourist buses were to visit to support the network fright-on-house," and it was found that some members, including the fright-on-house of the Busan Branch, who first arrived at, as stated in the facts charged, were at the time of victims and obstructed their work while destroying office fixtures, etc. : 20: 19: 20: 19: 20: 20: 20: 20: 19; 20: 20: 20: 20: 20: 200, 2000, 19: 20: 20: 200, 2000, 20: 7. 20: , 200. 200. Ga.

19 : 50경부터 같은 날 20 : 10경까지의 피해자 김●●, 이△△, 이★★, 이□□, 고◎◎에 대한 공동상해의 점, 흉기휴대 재물손괴의 점에 대하여는 무죄를 선고하고, 피해자 한이 이에 대한 2007. 10. 20. 19 : 50부터 같은 날 20 : 10까지의 공동상해의 점 및 2007. 10 .

20. 19: 00 to 20:10 on the same day, the court found the Defendant guilty of interference with business between 19:00 and 20 on the same day, and found the Defendant guilty of each of the charges of violating the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint injury) due to violence to ○○○○ from 19:20 on October 20, 207 and the charges of violating the Act on Punishment of Violences, etc. due to violence to ○○○ from 20:20 on October 20, 2007. 3) based on the records and records of the first instance judgment, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of each of the charges of interference with business between 10:0 and 20:40 on the same day. In view of the fact that there is no evidence to support the Defendant’s prior conspiracy with other cargo joint and several members, it is difficult to view that there was no time to view that the Defendant participated in a series of meetings of the Seoul branch and other members of the branch of the branch of this case.

(B) The summary of the facts charged in the judgment of the first instance court of the third instance 1)

Defendant 1, who is a member of the Trade-Aid Association, shall be jointly recruited with 90 other co-owners who are members of the Trade-Aid Association, and on July 207.

26. From July 27, 2007, the first instance court rendered a judgment not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the members of the cargo solidarity, such as Defendant 100, knew and accepted the fact that it would interfere with business and traffic by driving and stopping a vehicle as stated in the facts charged, or that it is difficult to conclude that the members of the cargo solidarity, such as the Defendant 100, knew and allowed the fact that it would interfere with business and traffic by driving and stopping a vehicle, or that there was a contact with the person who directly carried out such act in order or implied intention with the string members.

3) Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance in comparison with records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant Cho 00 was engaged in obstruction of business and traffic as stated in the facts charged, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the first instance court conspireds with the standing members in advance, and therefore, we affirm that the first instance court acquitted Defendant of this part of the facts charged. (3) Ex officio determination is ex officio.

With respect to Defendant Cho 00, the Daejeon District Court Decision 2007Gohap295, 415 (Joint) decided February 19, 2008 (Supreme Court Decision 2007Gohap295, 415 (Joint Judgment) decided February 19, 2008 (Court of First Instance), one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and Daejeon District Court 2008.

4. Since the Supreme Court Decision 207Da2209, 2248 (Consolidation), 2285 (Consolidation), 2264 (Consolidation), 2366 (Consolidation), 2415 (Consolidation), 208 Godan9 (Consolidation), 37 (Consolidation), 170 (Consolidation), 279 (Joint), 279 (Decision 201), 6 months of imprisonment and 207 Goju District Court Decision 207Mo235 (Joint), 208Hun-Ba17 (Joint), and 41 (Joint) (Joint), 30 years of imprisonment and 7 years of final judgment and 7 years of final judgment of the court of first instance, each of the above judgments has been pronounced guilty of the crimes under Article 17 of the Criminal Act and the crimes under Article 207 of the Criminal Act.

B. Defendant MaximumO part

○ Sentence of the first instance court: Imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months, 3 years of suspended execution.

Pursuant to the sentence of the first instance court (the fact that Defendant ○O recognized his mistake and against himself, Defendant ○O did not participate in the planning process of the instant demonstration; Defendant O did not participate in the process of the instant demonstration; the degree of participation in the inciting, directing, etc. in extreme demonstration or demonstration group is relatively minor; Defendant already punished accomplices (Seoul High Court Decision 2007No234, Sept. 21, 2007); equity in punishment with those of the already punished accomplices; and the instant illegal dispute is an passive refusal that does not involve violence.)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appeal against the prosecutor's maximum 00 defendant and the prosecutor's appeal against the prosecutor's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's second and third first court's appeal against the acquittal's judgment shall be dismissed, and all convictions against defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The same shall apply to each relevant column of the judgments of the first instance court.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 144(2) first sentence and (1), 136(1), and 30(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Articles 257(1) and 30 (a) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Articles 366 and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 36(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Articles 2(1)1 of the Criminal Act; Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 30 (1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 30 (1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Articles 3(1) and 30 (1)1 of the Criminal Act; Articles 19(1) and 30(2) of the Criminal Act; Articles 6(3) of the Criminal Act’s).

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act [1] Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act : (1) The crime of causing bodily injury to the performance of special duties in the judgment of the first instance court, each crime of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) , each punishment provided for the crime of causing bodily injury to the performance of special duties in the light of which the quality of the crime is heavier, (2) the crime of obstructing the performance of landscaping and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a joint injury) , and the punishment as imprisonment with

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Among the crimes of the latter part of Articles 37 and 39 (1) (each of the crimes of the first instance judgment and the crimes of No. 1 of the judgment of the third court of the first instance, the crimes of No. 1, 2, and 3 of the annexed List of Crimes (1) among the crimes of the judgment of the court of the first instance, the crimes of No. 1, 2, 3, 11 through 15 of the annexed List of Crimes (2) among the crimes of No. 2 of the judgment of the court of the second instance, the crimes of No. 3 of the annexed Table of Crimes

- Each of the crimes at the temporary location described in 1, 2, and 3 and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint destruction and damage) which became final and conclusive on July 6, 2007

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (as to the crime committed before the final judgment of July 6, 2007)

Of the facts charged in the instant case, on October 20, 2007, the victim from around 00 to 20:10 of the same day among the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as seen in the grounds of appeal, but each of them constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime in the judgment of the grounds of appeal.

On October 20, 2007, which was prosecuted for a single crime: from 19 to 20: 20 on October 20, 2007, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) due to violence against ○○ by Korea from 19 to 22.

20: To the extent that the crime of interference with business between 10 and 20: 40 is found, the judgment of innocence shall not be rendered separately.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Sang-hoon

Judges Lee U.S.

Judges Dokman