Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

J. H. L.S. Only

Busan District Court Decision 2008 Godan385, 2008 Godan862 (Consolidated), 2008 Godan981 (Consolidated) Decided May 9, 2008

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) Interference with the business (the second crime in the Judgment of the Defendant)

Although the Defendants entered ○○○’s written underground store as stated in the judgment of the court below at the same time and place as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the court below found the Defendants guilty of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, although the Defendants entered the store to purchase goods or did not interfere with the store operation of the victim Nonindicted Co. 1.

The violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (Defendant 1)

Defendant 1, in collaboration with the mixed or Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance trial, did not report as stated in its holding at each time and at each location as indicated in the judgment below, and did not hold an outdoor assembly after sunset. However, although Defendant 1 held a culture system to screen video works to inform the group of non-regular workers of the illegality of non-regular workers of the non-regular workers, the court below found Defendant 1 guilty of each of the facts charged in the judgment below, which erred by misapprehending the facts about the assembly and demonstration Act (hereinafter “Act”) or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of the fact that the Defendants committed each of the crimes of this case in order to inform the illegality of the collective dismissal of non-regular workers of non-regular workers of non-indicted 1 corporation, there are extenuating circumstances in light of the circumstances, and that the Defendants 2 and 3 merely participated in the assembly held by the head office of △△ City, △△ City, the Busan Regional Headquarters of △△ Group, etc., the sentence of each of the court below against the Defendants (the fine of five million won, the fine of one million won, and the fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) As to the charge of obstruction of business (the second charge in the judgment of the defendant)

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, since the defendants' crime of interference with business is sufficiently convicted, the court below's judgment is just and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the defendants' assertion.

B. As to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (Defendant 1)

The Assembly and Demonstration Act requires a person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration to submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, etc. of the assembly or demonstration from 72 hours to 48 hours prior to the commencement of the outdoor assembly or demonstration to the chief of the competent police station (Article 6). The head of the competent police authority shall allow a person to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration in an outdoor or outdoor manner without permission (Article 10). However, the foregoing restriction shall not apply to an assembly on academic science, art, sports, religion, friendship, recreation, entertainment, shared donation, and national border events (Article 15). Whether the restriction is an assembly or demonstration, etc. to which the restriction is not applicable, shall be determined in substance by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the main purpose, time, place, content, mode of the participants' activities, etc.

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, Defendant 1, the director-general of the organization of Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol and held the members of the first instance court, who are co-defendant 1, the director general of the organization of Dol Dol Dol Dol and held the members of the non-indicted 1, as well as the members of the non-indicted 1, who are members of the non-indicted 1 corporation, for three times at the ○○ Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol, operated by the non-indicted 1 corporation, with "non-regular removal of the non-regular and bad capital" and the above relief is acknowledged by using the Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol, and the above relief is not a pure cultural product that is excluded from the application of the Act. Accordingly, the judgment below is just and there is no error of law

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing

In full view of all the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the developments and contents of each of the instant crimes, the circumstances after the crime, the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, family relations, and criminal records, the sentence imposed by the lower court to the Defendants is deemed appropriate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' appeal is without merit, it is all dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)