A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant

"Water supply and other facilities that provide public drinking water", which are the objects of the crime of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, shall be deemed to be limited to "water supply pipes" under the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, where tap water is supplied to a considerable number of people under the language and text of the crime of water supply and

However, the pipe in which the Defendant installed a valve is not a “water pipe” under the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, among the building in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) that supplies tap water from F, H, G, and I (hereinafter “instant water pipe”). It cannot be deemed that the water pipe is a facility that supplies tap water to “the public”.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the objects of the water supply prohibition crime.

Whether the Defendant’s act constitutes “influence by causing damage or any other means” or not, the Defendant only set up a valve in the instant water pipe for the purpose of protecting the safety of the construction workers during the period of remodeling construction of the ground floor and the first floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant remodeling construction”).

Furthermore, after September 2016, the completion of remodeling construction, the Defendant opened a valve at any time to use the tap water if the Defendant wishes to the residents, and the purpose of using the valve is to first cause damage to water leakage prevention construction, and no other measure was taken to prevent the use of tap water.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized that the act of the defendant constitutes the act of damaging the water pipe of this case or by any other means is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

In relation to the act of a political party, leakage due to water leakage during the remodeling project of this case has caused imminent danger to the lives, bodies, etc. of workers.

The defendant is in this danger.