The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The defendant above.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) the Defendant did not have any sound or disturbance within the hospital of the victimized person, and even if the Defendant had sound, the Defendant did not have any degree to interfere with the hospital business of the victimized person by making the noise more than one to two minutes.

Even if the defendant was unable to escape a little disturbance, the defendant was unable to do so.

However, in light of the time and circumstances during which the disturbance was committed, illegality is excluded because it constitutes a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Code, which does not violate social rules.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the Defendant and A are punished by death penalty.

The Defendant and A conspired, and around 14:50 on May 17, 2016, 'F hospital operated by the victim E in Ansan-si, Ma', which is operated by the victim E., the victim, and the victim used at will without returning part of the equipment, such as the ultra-frequency video diagnostic diagnostic apparatus in use by the victim, even though it is the object of the Defendant and A.

I asserted that they enter the above hospital and that they have stolen within the hospital, "h,h," and "C" while they are viewed as patients.

All the parts of this case.

“Along about 10 minutes of the victim’s hospital operation operation by force, such as intending to see sound, see the original department, main fact, atmosphere room, etc. of the above hospital, and booming the disturbance, etc., by means of force, the victim’s operation of the hospital was hindered.

2) Specific determination A) The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant and the Defendant’s living together with the Defendant were found as those who left the hospital by leasing the building of the instant hospital and operating the convalescent hospital, and they were sent to the hospital of the victimized party, along with the police officer’s claim to be owned by A on May 17, 2016, and A was investigated into the instant police box 14th day.