beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
except that from the date of this judgment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) As to interference with each business affair of the victim company’s M non-regular branch (hereinafter “non-regular branch”) (hereinafter “non-regular branch”), the victim company’s control of access to a factory is illegal to enable the above union members to not ascertain whether or not the substitute workers punished in the above factory are placed in the above factory, and thus, it does not constitute a protection value-added duty as stated in the crime of interference with the business. ② The acts accompanying the above union members in the process of blocking alternative workers is a justifiable act that does not go against social rules, and ③ even if the above family members exceeded considerable scope, the defendant did not conspired to do such act, and even if he did not intend to do so, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles that found guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B) On January 30, 2013, when the Defendant participated in the assembly on January 30, 2013, it was true that the participants in the assembly occupy four lanes in the five lanes. However, since the vehicle communication was made only on the other one lane and the opposite direction, it became impossible or considerably difficult to move due to the assembly.
However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
C) On May 1, 2013, the Defendant’s participation in the assembly on May 1, 2013, on the part of the participants in assembly, including the Defendant, had already interfered with the daily traffic by illegally installing a wall prior to occupying the road, and thus, the result of the Defendant’s act of causing interference with traffic.
(2).