beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C. Pronouncement of a sentence shall be suspended.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is not specified in the facts charged, and even if the Defendants did not commit an act of establishing a general traffic obstruction in collusion with the participants in the assembly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and finding the Defendants guilty of the facts charged for general traffic obstruction.
In addition, the punishment of the court below against the defendants (the fine of 500,000 won) is too heavy.
2. The judgment of this Court
A. As to the assertion that the facts charged are not specified, the purport of the law that allows the court to specify the facts charged by specifying the time, place, and method of the crime in the description of the facts charged lies in limiting the scope of the trial against the court and allowing the defendant to exercise his/her right of defense by specifying the scope of defense against the defendant. Thus, the facts charged is sufficient to state the relevant facts to the extent that it can distinguish them from other facts,
(2) On November 12, 199, in light of the above legal principles, the following facts charged were examined: “The defendant, from November 20, 2008 to 20:50 on the road in front of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Central Government Building, 200 participants of the assembly, including 200 participants of the assembly, occupying the road in front of the F Building, and carrying out relief. The defendants conspired with 200 participants of the assembly and interfered with the flow of vehicles near the above F Building.” The summary of the facts charged in this case is to limit the object of the trial to the court, and it is not to facilitate the exercise of their defense rights by specifying the scope of defense against the defendants.
The Defendants’ assertion on different premise is rejected.
B. As to the assertion that the general traffic obstruction was not constituted, the lower court duly adopted.