beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by B, C, D, and Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B1) 1 was at the site after a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles had been completed, and the Defendant did not participate in the crime of intrusion on the building of the upper accused. The Defendant was merely about the illegality of strategic attack through a loudspeaker, and did not inciting or inciting the act of intrusion. Since the visitors to the parking lot were only based on P’s vehicle, there was no intention of intrusion on a special structure, and there was no conspiracy with the visitors to the first floor of S. 2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, four months of suspension of execution, one year of suspension of execution) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are places where the general public’s access is free, and thus, it cannot be the object of entering a structure. Since the Defendant entered a parking lot by the military at the time, there was no intention of entering a structure, and there was no intention of entering a structure, and there was no collusion with the first floor of S. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, four months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
C. Defendant D1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as the Defendant was N’s support. As such, the remaining Defendants supported K could not be invited to commit a crime in advance. In order to hear a warning from P on strategic cooperation, the Defendant sought a sound from P to stop the P vehicle and parked the Defendant’s vehicle from the surrounding persons, and thus, the Defendant did not conspired with those who were at the site and the Defendant.
B) Defendant’s blocking roads have been controlled by means of a guards’ room building and blocking machine, and access is allowed only to employees working in S or specific persons working in S who have no usage. As such, it does not constitute “land access” of general traffic obstruction. 2) The sentence of the lower court of unfair sentencing (fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
The Prosecutor’s Defendants.