beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each of the instant actions by the Defendants in the instant case does not constitute an act prohibited by Article 4(1) of the former Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act (amended by Act No. 13726, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same) and cannot be deemed as having been unable to be evaluated by force of the crime of interference with business or having concerns over interfering with the business of the victim’s Korea radio base station.
Unlike others, there is no illegality as a justifiable act.
The court below did not make any judgment on this, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Each sentence (two years of suspended execution, community service 40 hours, Defendant B’s suspended execution in the month of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution in the June, and 40 hours of community service work) imposed on the Defendants by the lower court on the Defendants are excessively unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. 1) As to the assertion of illegality or misapprehension of legal principles in the omission of judgment, omission of judgment, failure of incomplete deliberation, and omission of trial, the Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that the facts constituting the constituent elements of a crime are denied in accordance with the legal principles. As to this, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case, thereby making a judgment on the above argument. In addition, Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The judgment on the grounds that the establishment of a crime is excluded, the increase of punishment, or the statement of facts constituting the grounds for reduction or exemption shall be clearly stated.” Thus, the above argument cannot be deemed unlawful even if the lower court did not determine on the ground that it does not constitute the constituent elements of a crime. Accordingly, in the event of interference with business, the Defendants and the defense counsel do not accept the above argument.