beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant had not instigated a special intrusion or interference with business to B, and only before the instant case occurred, Defendant H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”).
(2) Even if the above defendant's act constitutes the elements of the crime of special intrusion and obstruction to the operation of H employees, even if the above defendant's act constitutes the crime of interference with the operation of a special room and the crime of interference with the operation of H, it is inevitable for H to refuse to pay the additional construction cost and to refuse to pay it from H for two years since the FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "F") who was in office as the representative director was not paid the additional construction cost for the two years after H, and thus, it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules and is a legitimate act.
3) Considering that there are circumstances that may be considered in the circumstances leading up to each of the instant crimes, and that if the said Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment due to each of the instant crimes, the F’s manager must take the sentence. As to the above Defendant’s special room in the lower judgment’s decision, the lower court’s punishment (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. (B) On October 2010, 201, the Defendant and the F’s employees entered the H office in a peaceful manner through the door opened by H employees for the settlement of additional construction costs, and there was no conflict between the Defendant and F’s employees in the lower judgment’s business obstruction against their will, such as where the said Defendant and F employees moved to the H office for the settlement of additional construction costs, and there was no violation of their will, such as the Defendant’s control of H employees.) On October 22, 2010, the Defendant’s and F employees’ interference with the operation of the H office.