A. Defendant (Defendant 1)’s act of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principle constitutes a justifiable act. (2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s violation of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (hereinafter “Defendant’s second judgment”) is a continuing criminal, not an immediate criminal, and the Defendant obstructed the development of the housing site development project district by using a container as a residence until September 23, 2013. As such, the statute of limitations has run from around that time. Accordingly, the statute of limitations has not expired at the time of the instant indictment.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act does not constitute a justifiable act because it is an exercise of real force without due process, which lacks the reasonableness of means or methods and minimum infringement of damage, and found guilty of the facts charged in this case. 2) Whether a certain act does not violate social norms, and the illegality of the act is excluded from a reasonable act should be determined on an individual basis under specific circumstances. To recognize such legitimate act, first, the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, second, the reasonableness of the means or method, third, the balance between the benefit of protection and the benefit of infringement, fourth, urgency, fifth, the balance between the legal interests of the means or method and the benefit of infringement, fourth, the other means or method as well as the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8074, Apr. 27, 2006).