beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. From February 15, 2012, the Defendant: (a) mismisunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles only dealt with the victim D and did not assault the victim; (b) the victim opened an office door around June 17, 2013 and entered the office door; (c) thus, it cannot be deemed as intrusion upon the building or constitutes a justifiable act; and (d) Pungwon Partnership Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) at the time of closure of business is practically in the status of closure of business, it is difficult to view the victim’s operational duties against the instant company as a justifiable business worthy of protection under the Criminal Act.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, and sentenced the Defendant guilty.
B. Even if the court below found the defendant guilty of unfair sentencing, in light of the fact that the defendant's economic condition is not good, the sentence imposed by the court below (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below as to the allegation of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, since the defendant has committed an assault against the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case, the court below's decision of conviction is just and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant and his defense counsel.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the infringement of the Sheet structure, the office of the company of this case is a structure that can open the entrance within the office of this case and enter the door. On the day of this case, the defendant confirmed the building of the defendant while the victim D, who has the Belgium outside the office of this case, did not open the entrance door completely, and at this time the entrance is outside the entrance.