The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) brought Defendant A to the headquarters and the employee ledger, etc. of Defendant D was conducted with the consent of the owner, and there was no intention to obtain unlawful permission (1.2) Defendant A committed an act interfering with the performance of official duties in the course of committing the thief crime of this case. Accordingly, there was a fact that the judgment became final and conclusive by being punished by interference with the performance of official duties. Accordingly, the criminal facts of the thief as stated in the judgment of the court below should be acquitted by the res judicata effect of the above final and conclusive judgment (2.3) Defendant A did not insult the victim, who is a public official, (2) Defendant B did not interfere with the performance of official duties by threatening the viewing public official.

2) Defendant B did not have aided and abetted a thief by facilitating the theft crime committed by Defendant B.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) (1) The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, as to whether the theft was established on April 1, 200, determined that Defendant A already transferred Defendant A’s possession to Defendant A’s possession against his will by excluding the headquarters, employee ledger, etc. under the possession of the public officials in charge of taxi affairs. The consent of the owner of such possession was given.

Even if there is no intention to obtain illegal enrichment, I did not accept it at the time of the above-mentioned action, and I rejected the above assertion in view of the fact that it was merely an acceptance thereafter. The above judgment of the court below is sufficiently acceptable and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

Therefore, Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

2) ② Determination of the argument regarding this part of the larceny charge is as follows: Defendant A was closed from D’s front road located in H around May 31, 2014, and E and F, who are public officials in charge of taxi affairs at the time, was closed.