1. Of the judgment below, the part concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (damage, etc. to joint property).

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants were exercising the right of retention prior to the victims.

There is no extenuating circumstance to view that the victims are forced to enter the hospital and take possession of the victims in full view of the following: (a) the victims are forced to leave the hospital and to interfere with the exercise of the right of retention by force, taking into account the following: (b) the lock devices are installed in the front door and the rear door of the building at the hospital; and (c) the victims are explicitly indicated the fact of exercising the right of retention; and (d) the representative R was negotiating the exercise of the right of retention with Defendant E

B. According to the Defendants and S’ statements, etc. of violations of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property damage, etc.), it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendants entered the main house of the hospital and cut down the hacks corrected at the entrance of the building.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A prosecutor filed an application for amendment to a bill of amendment of an indictment with regard to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (damage, etc. to joint property) in the charges regarding the violation of the Act on Punishment of Violences, etc., and filed an application for amendment to a bill of amendment to the indictment with regard to the "entry and Exit" as the subject matter of the adjudication was changed by this court's permission.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Determination on the assertion of mistake as to interference with business affairs

A. The conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which could lead a judge to have a correct doubt that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction shall also be rendered against the defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt.