beta
Text
The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that on March 19, 2016, the Defendant rendered a ruling to remove the above building from the Suwon District Court on the following grounds: (a) on March 19, 2016, when there was a dispute over the issue of the removal or compensation of the building on the land B (hereinafter “B”) and Pyeongtaek-si C (hereinafter “C land”); (b) the Defendant demanded excessive compensation and did not remove the building; (c) the victim D, the site warden of B, was removed from the above building on June 2016.
On June 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) parked a 140 F car at the site of the “E” military siren construction work, managed by the victim D near C land at around 10:00 on June 5, 2016; and (b) was fat and fat on the land; and (c) was fat on the land.
8. From 19:00 to 19:00, it was impossible to carry out new construction works by occupying a place to prevent the installation of safety fences.
Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's new construction work by force.
2. Determination
A. The burden of proof for the crime prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006). (b) The defendant and the defense counsel argued that the defendant parked a vehicle as above at the time of this case and was sitting in the above C, but the above act by the defendant is aimed at complying with the defendant's right to the above land (right to claim the transfer of ownership or the suspension of the law or the right to lease and lease the commercial zone, etc.) and thus, the obstruction of business is not established.
(c)
The evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.