beta
Text
The judgment below
All convictions against the Defendants are reversed.
Defendant
Each sentence against A, B, C, and F.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant A, B, C, and D’s joint confinement among the judgment below, and Defendant A’s obstruction of business around June 16, 201, according to the evidence submitted by the court below, although the court below found Defendant A guilty of each of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.
B. From the judgment of the court below, with respect to the joint injury by Defendant A, B, C, and D, the Defendants did not inflict any injury on the victim L as at the time of original adjudication, and the Defendants’ interference with the duties of Defendant A, B, C, and F, the Defendants merely resisted that M, who was dismissed at the special general meeting, was working at the office of the victim J Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “victim’s Union”) to disregard the right to disclose information of the members and to refuse document transfer. This constitutes a justifiable act that does not constitute interference with the duties or does not violate the social rules, and the Defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim M as at the time of original adjudication, and the Defendant removed documents attached to the bulletin board of the Association’s office, such as at the time of original adjudication. However, this is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to each of the Defendants’ act in question despite the fact that the director, who was dismissed at the special general meeting, resisted the right to disclose information of the members and did not violate the social rules.
(2) Each sentence of the lower court (a fine of one million won for Defendant A, a fine of seven hundred thousand won for Defendant B, a fine of three hundred thousand won for Defendant C, a fine of two hundred thousand won for Defendant D, and a fine of three hundred thousand won for Defendant F) against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable.