beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 2,00,000 won and by imprisonment of 1 year for each of the defendants B.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts), the court below found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the Defendants conspired in collusion with the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants could sufficiently recognize the fact that the instant lecture room was damaged by means of opening the lecture room and opening the lecture room in which the victim F was legally leased and used (hereinafter “the instant lecture room”). However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendants opened the victim F on the second floor of the instant building on April 8, 2015, and opened the two-story lecture room and run the fire fighting work.
Although the victimized person opposed to the progress of the construction, he stated to the effect that “the construction should not be delayed.” Defendant A delegated Defendant B with the progress of the construction, and Defendant B was under lease and use by the victim F from April 9, 2015 to April 14, 2015, and was under lease and use by the said victim F from April 15:00 to April 21:00, 2015, the above lecture room 201, 202, and 203 of the above lecture room at a private teaching institute lessons at the same time during the same day from April 15:00 to 21:00, on the ground that the fire construction work is carried out, the lecture room was destroyed by opening the lecture room and the chair, and by opening the lecture room, the victim’s right of lease was destroyed.
The Defendants conspired and interfered with the exercise of rights by the victim as above.
B. The lower court determined that Defendant A met the victim on April 8, 2015, along with the female representative of Defendant B and so-called JJ.