beta
Text
The judgment below
All convictions against the Defendants are reversed.
Defendant
A. A. fine of one million won, Defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court below, Defendant A, C, and E as to Defendant B, C, and E, there was no fact that Defendant B and E interfered with the front of the excavation season, and Defendant C did not have any hump the same bath as that set forth in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court below with respect to the construction-related persons and the excavationr driver.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B) There is no evidence as to Defendant A, B, C, and E’s crime of interference with business as described in paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant A, B, and E’s crime of interference with business as described in paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below, and there is no evidence as to the fact that Defendant C, C, and E interfered with business as described in paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below, such as that there is no credibility of each statement of Defendant A, M, A, and Y on the fact that Defendant A interfered with business as stated in the judgment of the court below, and that Defendant C, C, and E did not prevent the front of the bus by using the skin as described in paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below, and there is no other evidence as to interference with business, and the court below found Defendant A and C guilty guilty of this part of the facts charged as to Defendant A and C’s crime of interference with business, and Defendant C did not interfere with the victim’s duty to attend the meeting only because
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged as to the crimes of Article 5 of the decision of the court below by the Defendants B and D as guilty. Although Defendant D did not assault the victims, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.