beta
Text
The judgment below
The part excluding the judgment dismissing public prosecution shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be sentenced to four months of imprisonment and fine of KRW 600,000.
Reasons
1. Of the facts charged in this case, the court below dismissed the prosecution of assault, and convicted him of violating the Act on Interference with Business, Damage to Property, and Punishment of Minor Offenses. Accordingly, since the defendant appealed only the guilty part of the judgment below and the prosecutor did not appeal and the rejection part of the above dismissal becomes final and conclusive, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part excluding the dismissal of prosecution among the judgment below.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles - The Defendant’s act of obstruction of business is prohibited from having access to the construction site of the victim E company in the course of occupying the said construction site and exercising the right of retention in order to receive the construction cost of AB at the construction site of the D main apartment apartment located in Pyeongtaek-si, and thus, such act constitutes a justifiable act. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of obstruction of business among the facts charged in the instant case was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The victim E company was liable to pay 4.3 billion won to the corporation by November 30, 2013 in accordance with the civil conciliation with Y Co., Ltd., and was unable to exercise any right as to the said D main apartment from December 1, 2013 to December 30, 2013, and Y was also sentenced to the execution clause against the victim E company.
Therefore, at the time of the defendant's obstruction of business, the victim E company did not have the right to select the trial construction of the above D main apartment. Thus, the victim E company's attempt to select the trial construction is not a duty to protect.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of obstruction of business among the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.
B. Unreasonable sentencing.