If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in the self-business of the trade name "B" and owns the Daejeon Seo-gu C parcel.

On November 5, 2013, at around 21:30 on November 21, 2013, the Defendant was pushed down with two hand on the ground that part of the fire walls (a height of 192 cm, length 352 cm) accumulated in the F station of F station of the operation of the Victim E located in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon (D) was invaded by the boundary of the land.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the property equivalent to 600,000 won in the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. A report on investigation (Attachment of a field photograph);

1. Written estimate;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of evidence photographs, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s act is a legitimate act, since the Defendant’s act was a legitimate act, since the victim obstructed the boundary of the land owned by the Defendant for the purpose of obstructing construction, installed a fire wall, and refused removal of the fire wall even at

However, the "act that does not violate the social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act that is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether certain act constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms and thus, it should be determined individually after a reasonable consideration under specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met, such as the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the third protective benefit and the infringement benefit, the fourth urgency, and the supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do699, Oct. 23, 2008). In other words, the defendant was destroyed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court.