The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
10 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as seen below, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
1) As to the infringement of the effectiveness of the compulsory execution of real estate, the lower court, on the ground of the site of the gas station of this case where the execution of delivery of real estate was completed, has impaired the utility of compulsory execution by installing steel pents
However, at the time of the execution of the delivery of the instant real estate, the Defendant owned the waiting room for employees as stated in the facts charged in the facts charged of the instant case, including the general steel structure and other roof dangerous storage and treatment facilities, which are located within the site of the gas station in the instant case, by transfer from J. In the case of Capital, etc., the Defendant shall be deemed to be an independent building for which a separate ownership preservation is registered, not a paper material, but a separate ownership preservation is registered. At the time, the delivery of the said Capital, etc. was not carried out as an objection by the Defendant.
Therefore, this part of the facts charged cannot be found guilty on the premise that the execution of delivery of real estate has been completed.
2) As to interference (2015 order 3996) with the business, the lower court: (a) obstructed the Defendant’s preparation of gas stations by installing steel fences as above; and (b) obstructed the Victim’s preparation of gas stations operations.
However, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was found to have installed a gate for the preservation of rights as the owner of the glaps, etc., and the Defendant agreed to do so on the part of the victim, and the Defendant removed the pents before the preparation to commence the business in an administrative manner was completed, and thus the Defendant’s business was obstructed.
In light of the fact that the injured party performs the duties of maintaining and repairing gas stations even during the period in which the pents are installed, this part of the facts charged cannot be found guilty.
3) As to each attempted attempt (the second order 3996, the second order 2015, the second order 5456, the second order 5456) the lower court.