The seized Razers (No. 3), shots (No. 4), shots (No. 4), and 1 joints (No. 7) shall be confiscated, respectively.

【Modern of Criminal Conduct】

From May 2004, while the Defendant newly built pigs in Hongcheon-gun B and raised and sold pigs in the trade name called "C", the Defendant obtained eco-friendly certification of organic livestock products from the Hongcheon Branch of the National Agricultural Products Quality Control Service on August 16, 2009, and applied for renewal of certification every one year, and applied for renewal of certification on July 22, 2013, and applied for renewal of certification to the Hongcheon Branch of the above Hongcheon-gun for renewal, but "the Defendant's feed of swine created by the Defendant does not fall under 100% organic feed on the grounds that it does not constitute an eco-friendly feed on the Defendant's application for renewal."

Around December 16, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court to claim for damages that the Seoul Central District Court would have caused property damage by an unlawful disposition, such as violating the principle of trust protection and the relevant procedural regulations, based on false facts, and payment of KRW 100 million to the State. However, the Defendant’s assertion was not accepted on August 25, 2017, and the judgment of dismissal was rejected, and the Defendant appealed to the same court on November 2, 2017, but appealed to the same court on July 13, 2018, but the Defendant again appealed to the Supreme Court on August 6, 2018.

Since then, the Defendant complained of his detention to the Supreme Court in the process of the final appeal and had an impact on the trial favorable to the trial, as seen above, set up one content in India from September 21, 2018 to Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and continued one person’s demonstration, referring to a clicket that “the fair trial in India from around 07:00 to the retirement of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,” each day, from around 07:00 to the retirement of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

However, on November 16, 2018, when the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal, the Defendant raised a complaint, and raised a social issue by extinguishing a vehicle with a fire on an official vehicle serving at work by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at around that time, thereby creating a social issue by extinguishing a vehicle with a fire on the vehicle, and notified the Defendant of the illegality of the above certification renewal disposition, the illegality of the above certification renewal disposition, and the illegality of the above claim for damages lawsuit, etc. on the three occasions and received compensation for the Defendant’s damage through further review, etc.

【Preparation and Execution of Criminal Conduct】

On November 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) purchased each 1.8 foot from “F in Jungcheon-gu, Seoul; (b) 3,500 won from “F” in “F,” and 6,000 won from “H in Seoul, Jungcheon-gu, Seoul, and 3,500 won from “B,” and prepared 6,000 won from “B,” for committing the crime.

Since then, around 06:00 on November 27, 2018, the Defendant: (a) divided the above preparations into three parts of the Defendant’s ten hundred cubic plastic Picks; (b) put the Defendant’s body into three parts; (c) put the Defendant’s body into one front of the due diligence from 07:00 on the same day; and (d) put one demonstration before the due date and worked by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; (c) put the Defendant’s body on board by the Chief Justice I, the Secretary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Defendant’s body, who was in possession of the Defendant’s body coming into his driving secretary K with the due diligence of the Supreme Court, 3) put the Defendant’s body into the front right seat of 500 cubic plastic Picks, and then put the Defendant’s body into three 500 cubic bits, and then put the Defendant’s body into three bits, so far as it is possible to put the Defendant’s body into the front seat.

Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed an automobile with human beings by setting fire.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant against the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to M, J, N, andO;

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. A written estimate of the damaged vehicle and video recorded at the time of committing the crime (Supreme Court CCTV CD3);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act; Selection of limited imprisonment

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. The assertion and judgment of self-defense or legitimate act

A. Summary of the assertion

Around August 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking compensation against the Republic of Korea and the Agricultural Product Quality Controllers in relation to the receipt of the notification of non-certification of eco-friendly agricultural products from around 2007, while raising and selling pigs. However, during the trial, the Defendants and the attorney of the Plaintiff (the Defendant) conspired to alter and forge evidential documents, and the court of first instance ruled against the Plaintiff despite being aware of all the above circumstances. While the Defendant appealed, the appellate court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal without determining the Defendant’s assertion, and the Defendant appealed against this, but the Supreme Court rendered a final appeal on November 16, 2018, but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal against the Defendant. The aforementioned decisions are unlawful acts infringing the Defendant’s judicial power, and the Defendant’s act of entering in the facts charged in the course of punishment constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Whether a certain act constitutes legitimate act that does not contravene the social norms and thus, should be determined on an individual basis by taking into account specific circumstances. To recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003; 2006Do9307, Mar. 29, 2007); and (ii) to recognize a certain act as self-defense, the act must be deemed reasonable to defend the current unfair infringement of his or another person’s legal interests; and (iii) whether the act of defense is reasonable should be determined by taking into account the type and degree of infringement by the act of infringement; and (iv) degree of infringement; and (iv) specific type and degree of infringement (see, 30136).

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Korea and P on December 12, 2016 on the ground that the environment-friendly non-certification order against the defendant was unlawful, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment against the plaintiff on August 25, 2017 (Seoul Central District Court 2016Da5302642), and the defendant appealed against the plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court 2016Da5302642), and the appellate court also rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal (the same court 2017Na6301), and the second defendant appealed against the defendant on November 16, 2018 (the Supreme Court 2018Da257606).

However, even based on all the evidence shown in the instant case and the materials submitted by the Defendant, it is difficult to view that there was the current unfair infringement of the legal interests of the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant. The evidentiary documents alleged to have been forged cannot be deemed to have been forged even if it was difficult to identify the content by copying the original documents and making it difficult for the Defendant to find out the same due to the ground for re-examination, which was already submitted by the Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have influenced the final outcome of the civil procedure even if he/she voluntarily submitted the original documents in the second instance of civil procedure, by asserting the same in the second instance of civil procedure. Furthermore, the judgment of civil procedure is to faithfully examine the arguments made by the Defendant in the process of the lawsuit and state the reasons for determination as such in full. Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, it cannot be said that there was any unfair infringement of the Defendant

Moreover, the act of putting a fire on a vehicle where a person exists in order to raise a complaint about the result of the trial and to inform it is not an act to protect the unfair infringement of himself or an act which is reasonable in the means and method.

Therefore, since the defendant's act does not constitute legitimate act or self-defense, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

2. The assertion and judgment on attempted crimes

A. Summary of the assertion

As a result of the Defendant’s crime, the instant vehicle was not burned independently, and thus, the instant crime did not reach the number of pages.

B. Determination

Fire-prevention is a fire-fighting act regardless of the medium by fire-fighting, and can be done under the name of the object in which it can be burned.

According to the CCTV images that were duly adopted and investigated by the court at the time of the crime of this case, it is reasonable to view that the vehicle of this case was in a state of burning independently attached to the vehicle of this case, regardless of the material transmitted by the vehicle of this case, as stated in the facts constituting the crime of this case, by spreading the back seat of this case, which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was seated, with the view to the lower end seat of the vehicle of this case, and thereafter continuously left the vehicle of this case for several seconds, and according to the estimate items of the vehicle inspection and maintenance estimate as to the vehicle of this case, when the vehicle of this case is based on the estimate items of the vehicle of this case, the vehicle of this case was not merely done by high temperature, but is destroyed by parts of the body of the vehicle of this case directly affixed to the vehicle of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant and the defense counsel do not accept this part of this case.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for one year and six months to fifteen years; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Fire prevention (Type 1) such as residential buildings, etc., fire prevention such as public buildings, etc., general standards for fire prevention crimes

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 2 years to 5 years of imprisonment

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for 2 years; and

The crime of this case was committed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and his secretary, etc., who raised objections to the outcome of the trial. Although it was extinguishing by the employees of the court, it is very dangerous crime that may lead to harm to human life and body. Also, the crime was committed against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is the chief judicial officer, for the purpose of retaliation against the result of trial. The physical attack against the members of the judicial branch by asserting that the court exercised illegal public authority on the ground that one party did not accept his request, does not mean that our trial system and the rule of law itself are denied and attack. The Defendant prepared necessary goods such as bamboo and satts, etc., for the purpose of committing the crime, and prepared for them in advance, and made them enter the Supreme Court door, and even if it was inevitable for the official vehicle on board to take advantage of the same time as the one on which the crime was committed, it is also very important for the Defendant to have prepared for a new and new vehicle to minimize damage, and even if it was difficult for him to use his defense to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

However, the secretary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was on board the instant vehicle, sought a favorable disposition against the Defendant, and the Defendant, as a person of distinguished service to the State, was unable to conduct a business normally by obtaining the Environment-Friendly Certification in the instant case from around August 2013, 209, when he was promoting a healthy livestock farming business by obtaining the certification of organic concentration around August 2009, and became subject to the disposition of non-performance of eco-friendly certification in the instant case, which eventually led to the bankruptcy, the Defendant’s wife was lost, and the Defendant was unable to cope with this difficult behavior. In the process of the Defendant’s occurrence of a difficult behavior, the court or prosecutor, or administrative agency, etc., which did not accept his assertion, seems to have caused the Defendant to be able to bear the responsibility of non-performance and to believe that the Defendant was in collusion or harming a specific person,

In addition, the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing factors specified in the pleadings of this case, such as the character, conduct, family environment, motive, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

Judges Kim Jong-tae

Judges Bo Dong-dong