logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.08 2016노2430
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동퇴거불응)등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant E’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts did not have conspired with other co-defendants in advance to occupy the entrance of Dongjak-gu Office as stated in the instant facts charged, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, and thereby, conspired with other co-defendants in collusion with

A mistake that has been found to have interfered with the execution of duties by refusing to comply with the Gu and carrying dangerous objects.

B. The respective court below’s sentence against each of the Defendants on the assertion of unfair sentencing (2 million won per fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to Defendant E’s assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant recognized the crime in the court below’s court; (b) the Defendant has continuously participated in an assembly and demonstration against the Dongjak-gu Office with other Defendants on September 30, 2015; and (c) participated in the assembly and demonstration with respect to the removal of commercial buildings continuously from September 30, 2015; and (d) the Defendant participated in the assembly of this case in order to resist the removal of the Dongjak-gu Office’s card prior to the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is deemed to be contradictory to the Defendants, and the Defendants’ removal may result in the instant crime in the process of responding to considerable damage, such as losing their means of livelihood due to the removal, and the head of Dongjak-gu’s actions wanting to take the Defendant’s measures against the Defendants is favorable to the Defendants.

However, the defendants do not cause substantial public danger by collectively occupying the entrance of a public institution beyond the simple port and spreading dangerous objects.

arrow