beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1 does not have any mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. Defendant 1 did not have conspired with A. The time when the Defendant was sitting or getting out at the instant site is about five minutes, and the entrance of a construction vehicle was obstructed by another person at the time. As such, Defendant’s act does not constitute the force of the crime of interference with business, and it does not constitute the Defendant’s act of interference with business, but constitutes a justifiable act in light of its degree as well as the intent to interfere with business. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. (2) The sentencing of the court below on the grounds
B. The lower court’s sentencing is unreasonable as it is unfortunate.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. In other words, the Defendant interfered with the progress of the truck before a ready-mixed truck to leave the instant project team, along with the victim of the demonstration on June 7, 2012, and due to that, the truck’s failure to enter the construction site of the instant case and interfered with the construction work. (Even if the time when the Defendant was seated on the front of the ready-mixed truck does not affect the establishment of the crime of interference with business, this circumstance does not affect the conclusion of the crime of interference with business), considering the fact that the Defendant conspired with A by force and interfered with the construction work at the time of the naval base construction project, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant interfered with the construction work at the time of the instant project, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate act.
The lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.
B. As to the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to each of the instant crimes, and circumstances before and after the instant crimes, etc., are various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments.