beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts as to the acquittal portion), the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendants could sufficiently recognize that they interfere with the victim’s business to have the intent to carry out guard around June 8, 2014, as stated in this part of the facts charged, and this does not constitute legitimate defense of the victim, thereby obstructing the victim’s legitimate exercise of rights.
2. Determination
A. On June 8, 2014, the Defendants conspired in collusion with the Defendants on the summary of this part of the facts charged, thereby obstructing the victim’s work by force by obstructing the progress of the rashers on the floor of the work site, thereby obstructing the victim’s work by using force, as part of the confirmation of the boundary by the injured party in the vicinity of the access road to the E front parking lot in order to transport approximately 5 kn of the weight of 1 ton.
B. The lower court rendered a judgment on this part of the facts charged on the ground that “The victim’s work that the Defendants interfered with is a construction work that offers approximately one ton of the cafeterias immediately front of the restaurant run by the Defendants, and even if the place is a land owned by the victim, the construction is an infringement of the Defendants’ business rights and housing rights, and thus, the said construction is an infringement of the Defendants’ legal interests, and the said construction is an unfair infringement of the Defendants’ business rights and housing rights, and the act of putting them at the work site is reasonable to defend the Defendants’ current unfair infringement of legal interests, and thus constitutes a legitimate defense,” under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
(c)
The illegality of any act that does not violate social norms is excluded.