beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).
1. In order to recognize facts constituting a crime different from those stated in the indictment ex officio without changing the indictment, the court shall not only establish the identity of the facts charged, but it shall not cause any substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of the defendant's right of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2252, Jul. 25, 2003). The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant was elected as the head of the partnership B (hereinafter "B") according to due process. However, although the defendant was not elected as the head of the partnership of B (hereinafter "B") in accordance with due process, the union filed a request for correction of the indication of the party by changing the president of the partnership to the defendant, withdrawal of the two lawsuits, and interfere with the victim's president's business by deceptive means by preventing the head of the association of the victimized person from performing his/her duties.
B. In full view of the circumstances indicated in its holding, the lower court: (a) committed each act of litigation involving the head of the victim association by arbitrarily indicating the fact that the Defendant was not elected as the head of the association in accordance with the lawful procedures stipulated in the management rules of the B association, by using the fact that he was aware
The recognition was recognized.
However, the defendant's act revealed in the facts charged is not a deceptive scheme, but a threat of force, and it is judged that the defendant's act was guilty of "a obstruction of business by force" without changing the indictment.
(c)
In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below judged that the procedural acts recorded in the facts charged by the defendant in the position of the president of the association without authority constituted a deceptive scheme, not a deceptive scheme, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful for the court below to change the facts charged ex officio.