beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The duties of transporting explosives that the defendant et al. interfered with are performed upon acceptance by the police for a report (e.g., omission of descriptions in light of maintenance and transport means) that does not meet all the requirements under the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act, and are not subject to protection
In addition, since the naval base construction project is illegal construction that infringes on the fundamental rights of the residents of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, the accused's resistance act is justified as self-defense, emergency evacuation or legitimate act.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (the fine of 2.5 million won) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. The duty of the crime of interference with business in determining the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is deemed worth protecting the defendant's business, and the contract, administrative act, etc., which is the basis of the duty, is not necessarily lawful. If the contract, administrative act, etc., which is the basis of the duty, is continuously performed in a peaceful state, unless it is the case where the degree of illegality is so severe that it is considerably unacceptable in social life, it is worth protecting the victims under the Criminal Act. Thus, even if there are some deficiencies in the report filed prior to the transportation of explosives, as alleged by the defendant, the report is accepted, so long as the victims'
(A) A report cannot be deemed null and void on the sole ground that the report was omitted. Furthermore, a naval base construction project, which is lawfully approved, cannot be deemed illegal, and the Defendant’s above act cannot be deemed reasonable. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act is a legitimate act, self-defense, or an emergency evacuation that does not go against social norms as a citizen’s objection.
Therefore, the lower court was justifiable to have convicted of the facts charged in this case.
(b).