beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the instant facts charged, even if the Defendants were to have obstructed an extraordinary general meeting business, as shown in the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is Defendant A, B, and F are representatives of J reconstruction Association and Defendant C, E, and D are members of the said Association.
The Defendants, who are members of the above union, attempted to hold an extraordinary meeting to dismiss the executive officers of the above union in accordance with the proposal of at least 1/10 of the members of the union and the decision of the court, and attempted to interfere with the normal holding of the extraordinary meeting by preventing the members from attending the said extraordinary meeting.
On February 12, 2014, at around 18:00, Defendant A, C, E, and D had a meeting place of the above special meeting, and around 102, Defendant A, E, and D, before the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, where there was a meeting place for the above general meeting place, asked the entrance of the above meeting place and the number of houses to ensure that those who wish to enter the place and make them not enter the meeting place; Defendant B: (a) prevented those who want to enter the above meeting place from entering the meeting place from entering the meeting place; and (b) interfered with the acts of other Defendants.
As a result, the Defendants conspired with and by force interfered with the general meeting of the victim.
B. In light of the legal statement of the witness of the court below, the court below held that the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, on the ground that it is difficult to believe that the contents of the statement, fact confirmation, and the letter of accusation, which seem to correspond to the facts charged, are difficult, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants interfered with the