Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Lee Jin-jin

Attorney Cho Hyun-chul et al.

Incheon District Court Decision 2009Da3910, 5145 (Consolidated) Decided November 24, 2009

All parts of the judgment of the court below against the defendants are reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and by imprisonment with prison labor for two and three months.

However, with respect to the defendant 2 and 3, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant 1 is not guilty of invalidation of indication in the line of duty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

In light of the fact that the court below's punishment (one year of imprisonment for defendant 1, two years of imprisonment for defendant 2 and three years of suspended execution, and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. As to the defendant 2 and 3

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s criminal facts constitute the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) against the above Defendants on July 1, 2009, on the following grounds: (a) around 14:00 on July 1, 200, in order to have the above Defendants occupy the above center again from Defendant 1, approximately 100 service personnel in order to have them deducted again; and (b) Defendant 1 et al. committed violence against the victims by an organization or multiple force by saving the body of the victim’s personal service personnel; and (c) the above Defendants committed the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) against each of the above Defendants, despite the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower court committed an unlawful offense against the above Defendants.

B. As to Defendant 1

With respect to Defendant 1’s invalidation of indication in the line of duty, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around March 26, 2009: (b) around 11:30, the Incheon District Court’s enforcement officer, with the delegation of Nonindicted 1 and 2, notified that the above building should not be occupied by the original copy of the provisional disposition prohibiting the obstruction of business operation of the above court; (c) or any act impeding the creditors’ business operation of the above building should not be committed; and (d) on 3th floor of the above convention center, Defendant 1 notified the above execution officer of the provisional disposition prohibiting the obstruction of business operation of the above case’s 209Kahap420; (c) in collusion with Nonindicted 5, June 22, 2009, Defendant 209 that the above provisional disposition ordering the execution officer did not constitute a violation of the above provisional disposition order under the jurisdiction of the court’s 9:00 on the sole ground that it did not constitute a violation of the above provisional disposition order under the Criminal Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below on the defendants as to the ground of ex officio reversal as seen above is reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' request for unfair sentencing. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants is reversed, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

Since the facts charged against Defendant 2 and 3 recognized by this court are the same as the records of the judgment of the court below, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the facts charged by Defendant 1 are as follows.

On April 21, 2003, Nonindicted 3, a part of Defendant 1, entered into an agreement with Nonindicted 1 and December 17, 2003 to guarantee 10% of the shares in return for the remainder of construction works, which was invested by Nonindicted 1 and 2 on December 26, 2003, to transfer the management right of the literature convention center from January 1, 2004, and the victim Nonindicted 4, a management of which was delegated by Nonindicted 1 and 2, had been lawfully occupied the literature convention center from that time.

From around December 2006, Nonindicted 3 and Defendant 1 interfered with Nonindicted 4’s business by asserting that Nonindicted 4 et al. did not properly distribute business profits. Nonindicted 1, 2, and 4 filed a lawsuit against Nonindicted 1, 2, and 4, such as a provisional disposition of suspension of the performance of duties, a lawsuit for requesting delivery of a building, and a confirmation of existence of an undisclosed association agreement, but all of them were lost. On December 2, 2008, Nonindicted 3 and Defendant 1 drafted a power of delegation with the intent to delegate all the powers of Nonindicted 3 and Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 5, who were the origin of the North Korean Literature Convention Center (HD) for the purpose of avoiding possession of the said literacy Convention Center. Defendant 1 conspired to interfere with Nonindicted 5 and the victim’s business and to intrude the literacy Convention Center without permission.

1. Crimes committed on December 19, 2008;

A. On December 19, 2008, at around 09:40 on December 19, 2008, Defendant 1 entered the convention center with 4-5 service personnel who could not know their names, and entered the conference center operated by Nonindicted 4 through the entrance to the building and intruded with the building.

B. From 09:40 on December 19, 2008 to 12:40 on December 19, 2008, Defendant 1, along with the 4-5 service personnel whose name is unknown, intended to carry documents, such as the pre-contract account books, at the pre-contract office at the above literature convention center from around 09:40 on December 19, 2008, controlled female employees, “low-years need to grow, both years,” and return to the front of the pre-contract room. Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim Nonindicted 4’s operation by force in collusion with those who did not have the name.

2. The crime committed on December 28, 2008.

A. At around 20:35 on December 28, 2008, Defendant 1 conspired with Nonindicted 5, and 50 persons, including Nonindicted 6, 7, 9, and service personnel who were from North Korea, and whose names are unknown, entered the office operated by the victim Nonindicted 4 by force, and intruded the building.

B. From 20:35 on December 28, 2008 to 18:10 on December 31, 2008, Defendant 1 conspired with Non-Indicted 5, and 50 persons, both Defendant 1 and Non-Indicted 6, who were the applicants of the above literature convention center, return to the corridor, and formed the pressure of the corridor. Defendant 1, in collusion with Non-Indicted 5, got back to the corridor. Defendant 1 controlled the entrance by blocking the entrance according to the food transport.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 interfered with the operation of the Convention Center by force in collusion with the above Nonindicted 5 and 6.

3. Crimes of February 9, 2009

A. At around 14:20 on February 9, 2009, Defendant 1 conspired with Nonindicted 5, and entered the building in collusion with the literature convention center located in Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City on 31-1, and there were 50 persons, including Nonindicted 6, 8, and service personnel whose names are unknown, who were the origin of the North Korea Epician, and who were from North Korea Epicians, and entered the building through the open entrance operated by Nonindicted 4 by force.

B. From February 14:20 of February 9, 2009 to February 13:00 of February 13, 2009, Defendant 1 conspired with Nonindicted 5, and the employees who want to attend the entrance with 50 persons, including Nonindicted 6, etc., who were the origin of North Korea’s establishment at the above literature convention center, and who want to attend the entrance at the entrance, controlled the entrance “at the time when they are going out and good at the entrance,” and controlled the entrance, and led to the corridor, and prevented the employees from entering.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 interfered with the operation of the Convention Center by force in collusion with Nonindicted 5 and 6.

4. The crime committed on June 22, 2009.

A. At around 09:00 on June 22, 2009, Defendant 1 conspired with Nonindicted 5 and 6, and entered the literature convention center, which was located in the Nam-dong 31-1, Nam-gu, Incheon, Seoul, into the literature convention center, where approximately 35 members of the Association of Persons who performed Special Military Missions, such as members of the Association of Persons who Performed Special Military Missions and members of the Association and service personnel whose names cannot be known, and invaded the building by entering the literature convention center operated by Nonindicted 4 by force from an organization or a large number of people.

B. At around 09:00 on June 22, 2009, Defendant 1, in collusion with Nonindicted 5 and 6, contacted with approximately 35 employees, such as the applicants and service personnel of the North Korean Institute of Literature Convention, and 10 employees working in the above Center’s reservation room, carried out the 10th floor entrance of the above center, and had the service employees control the access of the employees employed by Nonindicted 4.

Accordingly, Defendant 1, in collusion with Nonindicted 5 and 6, occupied the above center by force from the above date to the end of September 2009, thereby hindering the victim Nonindicted 4’s operation of the Convention Center.

The summary of the evidence recognized by this court is as shown in the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant 1: Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of entering a residence by the threat of force of each organization or multiple groups) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of entering a joint residence) of the Criminal Act, Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing duties) of each Criminal Act

(b) Defendant 2 and 3: Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (each point of violence);

1. Each decision to imprisonment with prison labor shall be made against the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. by Defendant 1 (joint dwelling) and the crime of interference with business);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (a)

B. Defendant 2 and 3: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant 2, 3);

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and 55 (1) of the Criminal Act)

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 2, 3);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Duplicated for the foregoing Reasons)

1. As to Defendant 1

Although Defendant 1 was divided into his mistake and agreed with the victim non-indicted 4, Defendant 1 committed the instant crime, Defendant 1, etc., Defendant 1, etc., even though all of the lawsuits against Non-indicted 1, 2, etc., such as the provisional disposition of suspension of execution of duties, the lawsuit demanding delivery of a building, and the confirmation of existence of an undisclosed association agreement, etc. were lost, and thus, the crime of this case was committed repeatedly despite having been punished as a similar crime against the same victim, the crime of this case was committed repeatedly in light of the circumstance, period of the crime, contents and form of the crime, etc., and even though it was previously punished as a similar crime against the same victim, the crime of this case was committed repeatedly in consideration of the defendant's age, character and conduct, circumstances, relationship with the victim, the method and method of the crime, etc.

2. As to the defendant 2 and 3

The crime of this case committed by the above Defendants is not easy for the victim non-indicted 4 to directly recruit one-time security guards who are employed by the defendant 1, etc. through the force of organization or multiple groups in the process of recruiting other one-time security guards upon the request of the victim non-indicted 4 in order to deprive him of the possession of the above literature convention center from the defendant 1, etc., and entering the above literature convention center. However, the crime of this case was not committed by the above defendants. However, by directly recruiting one-time security guards who are to be mobilized for the exercise of physical power, the nature of the crime is not easy, and all of the above defendants were punished for violent crimes, and the punishment like the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the above defendants' age, character and conduct, circumstances after the crime, etc.

The summary of the facts charged as to the invalidity of Defendant 1’s indication in the line of duty and its determination are the same as the stated in Article 2(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. This part of the facts charged falls under a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of

Judges Dok-ho (Presiding Judge)