beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.
Defendant
D is not guilty. All appeals filed by Defendant A, B, and C.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) The facts constituting the crime of the court below
As to the subsection, Defendant A’s moving to the road indicated in the facts charged constitutes a justifiable act, since it was done in accordance with the resolution of village residents in order to prevent the destruction of the road and the subsidence of the ground due to the passage of large freight vehicles, and the degree of such movement does not go beyond the scope of social reasonableness.
(2) The crime No. 1-B of the lower judgment
Defendant A’s act of setting forth that Defendant A’s act of not doing construction is a legitimate act, since the victim G did not take a drainage channel installation work at the construction site and did a new breeding company, it is an act on behalf of residents in the village as this Chapter, and its degree does not lack social reasonableness, such as that it does not interfere with the passage of heavy equipment, etc.
(3) The facts constituting the crime of the lower court are as follows.
Defendant A’s act does not constitute the crime of interference with business, or constitutes a legitimate act, since Defendant A’s act does not constitute a crime of interference with business, as the act of Defendant A’s act does not constitute a crime of interference with business, because it was possible to store soil on the road indicated in the facts charged, to lay off as a discharge pipe depending on the residents’ drainage plan for implementation of construction.
B. With regard to Defendant A, B, and C’s criminal facts of the lower judgment, Defendant A, B, and C driven the vehicle at the time and trying to enter the construction site while entering the village, and the vehicle with the ready-mixed vehicle trying to enter the construction site is narrow on a narrow road, and as such, the vehicle is not parked on the road with the intention to obstruct the passage of the ready-mixed vehicle.
C. Regarding Defendant D’s crime No. 2 of the lower court’s judgment, Defendant D was not at the same time and place as indicated in the facts charged, and there was no fact of participating in the crime.