The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (as to the portion of a crime without fault), Gosung-gun B forest is owned by the defendant, and constitutes “self-owned property” which is the object of the obstruction of exercising the right, and the defendant was taking possession of the damaged company by damaging the entrance and banner, which is the steel structure.

may be filed.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted this part of the facts charged.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a sum of three million won) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In the trial of the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with respect to the part obstructing the exercise of rights as stated in the following 1), and the subject of the trial was changed by this court’s permission.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is based on the changed facts charged regarding the prosecutor's assertion on interference with the exercise of rights.

1) From July 5, 2019 to around 09:00 on July 5, 2019 to around 11:00 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) placed two banners on each of the above doors in order to guide that G is a cement package of the cement gate of the C and each of the entrances of the land at Gyeongnam-gun B and C in order to exercise the right of retention; (b) 2.5 meters high, 6 meters in length, and 2 placards installed on each of the above doors in order to prevent the opening of the entrance; and (c) thereby preventing the Defendant from exercising the right of retention of the damaged company by taking away the possession of the damaged company by means of removal and damage using one monds, knick-gun, in order to prevent the said G from opening the entrance.

2) The right of retention is a right arising from an article possessed (Article 320 of the Civil Code), and the possession is an objective relationship that shows that the article belongs to a person's factual control in light of social norms.