beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the defendant (as to the guilty part), the National Assembly agreed to suspend construction for 70 days to wait for the implementation of the conditions attached to the three paragraphs regarding the transit of the budget bill for the year 2013 by Jeju-gun Complex Construction Project (hereinafter “instant construction project”), and the defendant forced construction without disregarding the construction on the part of the contractor, and the defendant committed an act indicated in each of the facts charged in this case for the purpose of protesting against this. Thus, the above act by the defendant is a justifiable act, or there is no intention to obstruct the business, and in order to constitute a obstruction of the exercise of power by a third party who is not the victim to a third party, the exercise of power against the third party should be deemed as identical to the act by the victim. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the act of obstructing access to the construction project cannot be deemed to constitute a obstruction of business to the start construction project.
(4) The operation of a construction vehicle that intrudes on the center line to turn to the left and passes through an illegal access road shall not be deemed a duty that is worthy of protection in the obstruction of business by violating the Road Traffic Act, the River Act, etc.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the part of the facts charged in the instant case, which found the Defendant guilty of interference with each business as of September 13, 2013, September 24, 2012, and October 11, 2012.
2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (as to the part concerning the crime without fault), the part concerning the obstruction of one’s business on March 22, 2014 among the facts charged in the instant case is sufficient.