beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
In the situation where dispute over the existence of a right of retention continues, the Defendant’s act of removing the banner installed by the lawful lien holder without permission does not constitute self-defense or legitimate act. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for excluding illegality, thereby having acquitted the Defendant as to the facts charged of this case.
Judgment
A. On December 26, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 16:28, the Defendant: (b) removed a banner equivalent to KRW 10,00,00 at the market price outside the building installed to exercise the right of retention for the construction cost in Pyeongtaek-si B while the Victim C (Nam and 56 years of age) was performing construction in Pyeongtaek-si B; and (c) destroyed it by means of removing a banner at the same place and destroying it in order to exercise the right of retention for the construction cost, the Defendant destroyed it by using 7 meters in width and 3 meters in length at the same time.
B. 1) In full view of the facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of removing the banner installed in front of the instant container and the open cover part ought to be justified in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics and social norms, and that the Defendant’s act of removing the banner installed in front of the instant container should be justified, and that the Defendant was acquitted of the facts charged in the instant case. 2) Examining the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s finding of facts and determination as stated in its reasoning are just and acceptable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as argued by the Prosecutor.
In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.