On November 8, 201, the Defendant acquired ownership of 200 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do (hereinafter “instant land”) through an auction procedure.

After that, the Defendant, with the knowledge that part of the instant land was incorporated into a package of about four meters wide (4 meters wide (hereinafter “the instant road”) used by neighboring residents, filed an application for a real estate delivery order with the Seoul Metropolitan City Southern-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City and received a decision of acceptance. On January 9, 2013, the Defendant removed the portion of the instant land incorporated into the instant road (hereinafter “the instant part of the land”) and delivered it to the Defendant.

Around January 30, 2013, the Defendant interfered with traffic by blocking both the part of the instant land (15m in length and 4m in width) of the instant land (15m, 1.5m in length) from a steel plate (a 5m, 1.5m in length) around January 30, 2013, on the ground that he/she exercises ownership.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of each police statement of D and E;

1. Complaint;

1. On-site photographs of complainants;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (as to attachment of field photographs);

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. A fine of 3,00,000 won to be imposed on the suspension of sentence (50,000 won per day of detention in the workhouse);

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of suspended sentence Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448, Apr. 1, 201)

1. The summary of the assertion - The Defendant, as the owner of the instant land, received the instant land portion from the Southern-gu Seoul Metropolitan City pursuant to the procedure for filing an application for an order to deliver real estate. As such, the Defendant’s above act is a legitimate

In addition, even if the defendant's act was illegal, the defendant did not have the possibility of expectation of illegality or legitimate act.

2. Determination - The general public.