beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) and the judgment of the court below in the indictment and the judgment of the court below are stated as H, but it appears to be a clerical error.
(V) After completing the construction of access road in the GGG G located in Chungcheongnam-nam budget-gun G (hereinafter “factory site in this case”), Samwon Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “V”) completed the construction of access road, and “V” to conduct an investigation into the impact of the development and utilization of groundwater and the groundwater. Since the operation of the construction vehicle during the construction of the above access road after concluding a contract for the development of groundwater with the content that it constitutes a duty worthy of protection under the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendants on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that the above construction does not fall under the “business of obstructing the performance of duties” and there is no other business.
2. Summary of the facts charged
A. The Defendants jointly committed the crime of Defendant A and Defendant B committed an act of obstructing the operation of construction vehicles, such as Pokeers who intend to enter the construction site in order to assess the impact of groundwater and to establish access roads for appurtenant construction works at the entrance of the instant factory site from August 3, 2014 to August 4, 2014, thereby obstructing the construction work of developing victim V and Samwon by force.
B. On August 5, 2014, Defendants B, C, D, and E committed joint crimes interfered with the construction work of the victim V and Samwon by threatening to interfere with the operation of construction vehicles, such as Pokes to enter the said site for the impact assessment of groundwater and the opening of access roads for appurtenant construction work, in a manner that Defendants B, C, D, and E are installed in order to access the site at the place specified in paragraph 1, Defendant C, J freight and K car, Defendant D, Defendant D, and Defendant E, in order to place a Track in order.
3. The lower court determined as follows: V.