beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A, B, and D Each fine of KRW 500,00,00, Defendant C, E, and F shall be fine of KRW 800,000.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. 1) Although there is a difference in the process of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants, the Defendants’ participation in the demonstration, time of participation, and individual actions are not specified, and the facts charged are not specified comprehensively and alternatively, and the judgment of the court below is unlawful, and the judgment of the court below is also unlawful. 2) Defendant A, B, and D participated in the demonstration after the day, and the remaining Defendants participated in the demonstration without participating in the demonstration at night, but without participating in the demonstration at night, they are divided into talks about a speech in the neighboring areas or talks with the neighbors.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants guilty on the part of the Defendants in the night demonstration after self-determination, either by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
3) There was no fact that the Defendants occupied the lanes and carried out a pedagogy or relief, and occupied the roads. The Defendants reported that the suppression police immediately before being arrested threaten women and children by the failure to protect them. Moreover, the Defendants did not engage in a demonstration on the new road at night, but had been on the road immediately before the arrest. Therefore, it is unreasonable to hold other participants of the demonstration responsible for general traffic obstruction. In addition, the Defendants’ act was an inevitable act for protecting women and the elderly. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendants as to the violation of general traffic obstruction by misapprehending the legal doctrine. However, the lower court’s punishment (a fine of KRW 800,000 on each of the Defendants’ grounds of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants’ ex officio, the Prosecutor’s ex officio examined the grounds for appeal, and the Prosecutor’s objection at the trial.