beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 3,000,000 and by a fine of KRW 1,00,000.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint property damage, etc.) against the Defendants was committed against the Defendants, and the instant pents had already been worn out and worn out since before the Defendants were shaking, and they were in a state of leaving away. The Defendants cannot be deemed to have damaged the instant pents in order to resist against the contractor who forced the construction of the instant case without the intention of damage, but there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below convicting Defendant A of this part of the charges. 2) Defendant A of obstruction of performance of official duties against Defendant A was put to the same effect as the police officers did not go against himself.
Even if Defendant A assaulted Defendant A, the above act constitutes a resistance against the police officer’s illegal arrest of Defendant A, who does not meet the requirements for committing an act in violation of the law, and thus, self-defense is self-defense.
The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.
B. The sentencing of the court below (the fine of KRW 3,00,000, Defendant B: the fine of KRW 1,000,000) is too unreasonable even if the Defendants are found guilty of an unreasonable sentencing decision.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to the effect that the Defendants violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property destruction and damage, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case, and since the above court permitted changes in the indictment, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
However, the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles still exists in the absence of such reasons for ex officio reversal.