Defendant

The appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Seo-gu Daejeon Special Metropolitan City Building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant commercial building”) 136 is jointly owned by the defendant and I, and the I has delegated the right to use to the defendant by entrusting the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's act of opening up two banners installed in the glass 136 of the commercial building of this case by the victim D, and the act of taking out letters by using a color lacing car set up in front of the entrance 136 in order to obstruct the victim F's access to the commercial building of this case constitutes a legitimate act or self-help that is dismissed for illegality by removing illegally attached placards, etc. attached to the commercial building where the defendant's ownership or right to use the commercial building of this case is granted.

Although the Defendant’s interference with business was written in Scaro on the first floor of the instant commercial building, it was rather because the victim D and F interfered with his own business, and such an act cannot be deemed as a threat of force in the crime of interference with business.

The sentencing of the court below's decision on unfair sentencing (the 4 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the damage of property in determining the misunderstanding of facts, the I, the owner on the register No. 136 of the commercial building of this case, recognizes that the defendant's interest in No. 136 of "136" is the defendant's right, and delegate the right to lease, sale and use to the defendant.

'는 내용으로 위임장을 작성해 준 사실(증거기록 제3책 중 제1권 제49쪽), ② 그런데 그 후 피고인이 이 사건 상가 1, 2층 점포 일부, 3, 4층 점포 전부에서 예식장을 운영하던 피해자 F 등과 사이에 건물 사용 문제에 관해 분쟁이 생기자, 136호가 위 예식장으로 들어가는 입구 바로 옆에 있고 투명한 유리로 되어 있어 내부가 훤히 보이는 것을 이용하여 수의가 입혀진...