beta
Text
The judgment below
Defendant G is reversed.
Defendant
G shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
However, the defendant G.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants were misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the facts constituting the crime listed in paragraphs 1 through 9 among the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants were misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the facts constituting the crime listed in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “BL”); BL is arranged in the order of the period of this hearing as follows (hereinafter “BL”); BL is “BL”; CY is “CY”; CY is “BY”; CY is “CY”; Q Q is “BY”; BY is “AY”; CE is “CE”; and CN is “CN”.
The Defendants did not appear at the construction site at the time of the instant crime.
In the case of assertion, there was no “non” or “no” at the pertinent construction site, but there was no assault or intimidation at the following construction site:
In the case of assertion, “constition 】 in the event of acknowledgement of the facts of the crime,” and “in the case of acknowledgement of the facts of the crime,” Defendant A indicated each of the facts on the whole crime, or by misapprehending the legal principles, the Defendant was convicted of the entire criminal facts of Q as to Q (crime Nos. 1 through 9) on the said Table (Seoul High Court Decision 2016No. 2941, Dec. 20, 2016). There was no conspiracy to commit the crime of attack with the Defendants.
There is no attendance at meetings related to BZ, CY, Q, CE, and CN on the construction site.
Although the defendant was present at a meeting related to AY construction site, he did not commit violence or intimidation.
Even if the defendant's crime of conflict is recognized, the amount of money that the above construction company should have spent for the original construction cost should be excluded from the amount obtained.
Defendant
B: The Defendant was found at the construction site of CY to request the victim CZ, who is the site manager, to write the regional equipment company, but there is no threat.
The defendant did not find a construction site of CN or forced the victim CP, etc. who is the site leader.