beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants is published.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (legal scenarios) was that the Defendants connected the broadcast reception line to remove unfair infringement of the right to view the composite cable broadcasting by the residents of G buildings at the time. For this purpose, the Defendants inevitably cut off the broadcast reception line in order to this end, which constitutes self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act or a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the Defendants cannot be punished as a crime of causing property damage. However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in the instant case without any determination as to the above assertion was reversed, and there was an error of law by misapprehending legal principles, which affected
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged against the Defendants is the resident of the Daegu Suwon-gu G building. Defendant B and C stated “H” in the instant indictment, but it is obvious that it is a clerical error in C, and thus it is corrected. The head of the I’s operating division is the I’s operating division.
Defendant
B around 12:00 on May 1, 201, at each of the above apartment units (101 Dong, 102 Dong, 103 Dong, 105 Dong, 106 Dong, 106 Dong) cut off with 62 locks, co-owned by the occupants of the above apartment units, and the Defendant A moved 10 lockeds of distribution boxes installed in the above apartment units (101 Dong, 102 Dong, 103 Dong, 105 Dong, 106 Dong), and directed Defendant B and C to cut the locks.
Accordingly, the Defendants jointly destroyed the locks of approximately KRW 362,514 as repair cost.
B. Before determining whether the Defendants had intent to cause damage to property (the Defendants) and the Defendants’ assertion, we will examine ex officio whether the Defendants had intention to cause damage to property.
The following circumstances, i.e., Defendant B and C, which are recognized by the record, are broadcast because there is no broadcast.