[1] Requirements for establishing a crime of interference with worship under Article 158 of the Criminal Act

[2] The case holding that in case where a person who was a member of a church removes the church board and a tree church, etc., which are collectively owned by the members, and replaces the entrance door to the wedding building, and prevents the access of the members for seven months, the above act of controlling the access to the building for a long time, shall not be deemed to continuously obstruct the worship of the members or the preparation stage closely related to the worship of the members, and therefore, it does not constitute a crime of obstruction of worship

[1] The crime of interference with worship under Article 158 of the Criminal Code is established only in the case of interference with the preparation stage of worship or the preparation stage of close relation between worship and worship, since the peace of religious life of the general public and the evaluation of religion are protected by law.

[2] In a case where a person, who was a member of a church, removed the church board, tree suspenders, etc., which are collectively owned by the members, and removed the entrance door from the wedding building to replace the entrance door and prevent the entry of the members for seven months, the case holding that the above act of controlling the access to the building for a long time, cannot be deemed as continuously obstructing the passage of the members or the preparation stage closely related to the worship of the members, and therefore, it does not constitute a crime

[1] Article 158 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 158 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Do2691 delivered on February 23, 1982 (Gong1982, 399) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do800 Delivered on September 9, 2005

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Park Jong-young et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 2007No985 Decided June 15, 2007

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal as to the crime of causing property damage and the crime of causing property damage

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, although the defendant left the church (name omitted) around November 2004 and the non-indicted person occupied and managed the instant wedding building, the defendant removed (name omitted), which is the collective ownership of the members of the church (name omitted), the church board, and the tree domination against the non-indicted's will on June 2, 2004, and confirmed the fact that the defendant interfered with the passage of the members after entering the above wedding building and pushing the visitors into the above wedding building and pushing them into the defendant's funeral, and thereby prevented the entry of the above objects. According to this, the defendant can be deemed to have impaired the utility of the above objects. Further, the defendant merely did not enter the (name omitted) church as a member of the (the church of this case, but violated the instant wedding building. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of causing damage to property and the crime of causing damage to property, as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal on the obstruction of worship

Since the crime of interference with worship as stipulated in Article 158 of the Criminal Act is the legal interest protected by the law of peace and religious appraisal of the general public’s religious life, it shall be established only in the case of interference with worship or the preparation stage which is closely related to worship and time (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Do2691, Feb. 23, 1982; 2003Do5798, May 14, 2004, etc.).

The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are as follows: the defendant intruded on the instant wedding building on June 2, 2005, replaced the entrance door locks to prevent the passage of the members, thereby obstructing the worship of the members, including the non-indicted, etc. for not less than seven months from that time until January 12, 2006; in light of the above legal principles, the defendant cannot be deemed to have interfered with the worship solely on the fact that the defendant controlled the access of the long-term wedding building, and there is no evidence showing that the defendant continued to interfere with the worship of the non-indicted, etc. or the preparation phase closely related to the worship of the members, such as the non-indicted, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged solely on the fact that the Defendant controlled the access of a long-term wedding building as to this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to obstruction of worship, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the obstruction of worship in the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed, and this part of the crime is in concurrent crimes with the remaining criminal facts against the defendant which the court below found guilty. Thus, the whole judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)