beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, this decision is delivered to the Defendants.
Reasons
1. The summary of the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal (1) in light of the fact that K took over the F cafeteria from I and stated that it again transferred it to the victim E, and that the F cafeteria lawfully transferred the F cafeteria to the victim E, and that the owner of the building stated that the F cafeteria newly prepared a lease contract every time it transferred in sequence to I, K, and the victim E;
Since the defendants take goods in the F cafeteria constitutes larceny, and ② even if the telephone number was made in the name of Defendant B’s husband, it would constitute the crime of interference with business by arbitrarily cancelling the telephone number normally used for business even if it was made in the name of Defendant B’s husband. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted all of the facts charged of this case on the other hand, is erroneous in the misapprehension
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, the prosecutor examined “special larceny” among the names of the crimes as “Obstruction of Exercise of Exercise of Exercise of Rights,” and “Articles 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act” among the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act as “Articles 323 and 30 of the Criminal Act,” and the facts charged in the instant case as stated in the “a summary of the facts charged” as stated in the “a summary of the facts charged,” and this court permitted it and changed the subject of the judgment, so the judgment of the court below no longer maintained. However, the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court even if there was a ground for ex officio reversal in the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is deemed that the Defendants’ co-principal Defendant A paid KRW 30 million at the Government-si D of the Republic of Korea around November 2012 and assigned the right of operation of the KOJ to the Z.
K is operating the above F cafeteria, and it is operating to the victim E.