beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the Defendants.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unlawful on the grounds that G does not comply with the E Apartment Management Rules and the E Apartment Broadcasting Facility Use Rules. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a business worthy of protection under the Criminal Act. The Defendants’ act of stopping such a broadcast constitutes an emergency escape or a justifiable act, and thus, the illegality is dismissed.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the following facts charged at the trial court, and the subject of the judgment by this court was changed by granting permission. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
However, the grounds for appeal by the Defendants are still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants
A. Whether a person is subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act or a person engaged in an occupation or continuous work or business that is worth protecting under the Criminal Act from an illegal invasion on another person’s business. As such, in a case where a certain business or activity itself has anti-sociality to the extent that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the degree of illegality, it does not constitute “business” subject to the protection of interference with business (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7081, Oct. 13, 2011). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the broadcast against the resident by G cannot be deemed as having anti-sociality to the extent that it is considerably unacceptable in light of the social life even if there is a violation of some provisions as alleged by the Defendants, and thus, it constitutes a business subject to the protection of interference with business.
B. Emergency evacuation as to whether a person is a party or a party’s legal interest.