logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.01.05 2016노1517
특수공용물건손상등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to the obstruction of general traffic), the Defendants were the general participants of the instant assembly, and they did not have any intention to obstruct general traffic.

Even if the intention is recognized, the police notified the rest of the assembly except for the assembly in Seoul Square, and the vehicle wall installed in order to prevent the movement of the participants in the assembly and brought about interference with traffic by itself. As such, the Defendants’ behavior, such as the facts stated in the instant facts charged, does not constitute a requirement for general traffic interference, or as it constitutes a justifiable act, illegality is excluded.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 5 months, Defendant B: fine of 5,000,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Prosecutor by the lower court to the Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the misunderstanding of the legal principles of the Defendants’ assertion that there was an intentional traffic obstruction to the Defendants, the lower court’s legitimate adoption and examination of the following circumstances, namely, ① approximately 60,00 participants of assemblies including the Defendants, including the Defendants, went through the 10-lane entire 10-lanes in each direction from the front of the 110 Seoul Square to the front of the J hotel in Seoul Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, after completing the Democratic Mu Korean Workers’ Congress at the Seoul Square, and the two directions were impossible due to this, ② the police was obstructed by the road traffic due to the above assembly and exceeded the scope of the report of the assembly, ③ the participants including the Defendants were forced to voluntarily dissolve and dissolve the police, despite the aforementioned voluntary dispersion and dispersion order.

arrow