beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 2,00,000 won, and by a fine of 3,00,000 won.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. 1) The victim’s lease contract, which was the lessee of the instant office, was already terminated at the time of the instant case. As such, the victim was obligated to restore to its original state at his own expense, such as removing interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior tegrasation. Therefore, the victim cannot be deemed to have suffered considerable damage to the repair cost due to the removal of the Defendant B’s interior interior interior tegras. (2) The victim was a serious situation in the wind of the electric power exhauster at his own discretion and using electric power generation devices without permission.
Accordingly, since it is intended to block electricity and move and store internal office fixtures to a safe place, it is difficult to see that there was an intention to lead to a residential intrusion and damage to property, and furthermore, it is reasonable to deny illegality by falling under self-defense as an inevitable measure for fire prevention of a building.
3) Defendant A believed that Defendant B would correct the victim’s permission. At the time of the instant case, Defendant B did not have conspired to commit the instant crime with Co-Defendant B at the time of the instant case, and did not appear at the scene at the time of the removal of internal interior interior interior interior tests by entering the victim’s office. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant A guilty by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine. (b) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the allegation of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 3 million,000,000, Defendant B’s fine of KRW 5,000,000,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, including the facts of conspiracy for each of the crimes in this case by Defendant A, can be sufficiently recognized, and even according to the witness K of the court below's testimony, the above facts constituting the crime