beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 2,50,000 won, and a fine of 50,000 won, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (Definite) 1) 2009 Highly 2682 case (in the case of injury), the Defendant was unilaterally assaulted by G, and did not commit any assault or injury to G. 2) 2010 Highly 104 case (the occupation of special intimidation and assault) Defendant was unilaterally assaulted by H and I, and there was no intimidation or assault by H.
3) The defendant in the case of 2010 Go-Ma288 (the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the damage, etc. to co-owned property)) merely moved to a nearby area to the extent that it does not interfere with the construction work, and did not harm the utility of the above things. 4) The defendant in the case of 2010 Go-Ma419 (the point of violence) (the defendant in the case of assault) used as construction materials only prevented H from leaving the board used as construction materials to the defendant, and did not assault H.
5) Even if the Defendant committed an act identical to that stated in each of the facts charged, the Defendant’s act of self-defense or legitimate act is asserting lien and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).
(6) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the ground that it was inevitable in the course of illegally intrusioning H and L at the construction site, which constituted legitimate self-defense or legitimate act. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.
B. Defendant B (Fewned Undue)’s punishment (hereinafter “fine 800,000”) is too unreasonable.
C. Defendant D (Definite) only moved to a neighboring wife to the extent that it does not interfere with the construction, to the extent that it does not interfere with the intention, consignee, and so on owned L, which is an obstacle to the construction, and did not interfere with the utility of the above goods.
Even if the defendant had impaired the utility of the above objects, the defendant's act is in the process of claiming the right of retention and emitting H, L, etc. which illegally intruded at the construction site E.