beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) recognized that the defendant interfered with the operation of the victim's stock farm in the same manner as the facts charged, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the above facts charged, and it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant was merely a lawful exercise of authority for the maintenance and management of the instant land, which is only the Defendant’s clan ownership, and embling operations to prevent parking around the instant land from being parked; and (b) it does not interfere with the passage of access roads to the victims or the bereaved family members using trees; and (c) in light of various circumstances, it is not unlawful as it does not violate the social rules.
The judgment of the court below is sufficiently acceptable when comparing the above judgment of the court below with the records.
The court below decided to the effect that the act of parking the victim and the family members using the arboretum around the land in this case causes damage to the clan, which is the landowner, and that the prohibition of such parking does not constitute interference with the business. In light of the fact that there was no use contract with the defendant on the land in this case and its surrounding areas such as dumping of garbage, forest fire, etc. which occurred prior to the instant case, and that there was no use contract with the victim with the defendant on the land in this case and its surrounding areas, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the act of parking the victim and the family members using the arboretum in the surrounding areas of this case constitutes the element of the crime of interference with the business, or that the illegality is removed, and there was
subsection (b) of this section.
Therefore, prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.
3. Conclusion.