When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

At around 17:00 on June 10, 2018, the Defendant extracted an insular gate (1100cm in length, 650cm in length) at the market price on the ground that the main gate owned by the victim C (58 years of age, south) was invaded on his own land at the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and removed a D signboard (a.800cm in length, 1300cm in length, 1300cm in length) from the market price in which the victim was suffering from the same place.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. On-site photographs (the defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the act of this case and the signboard of this case is not the ownership of the victim, but the moving of the gate constitutes a justifiable act. However, according to each of the above evidence, the above gate and signboard is recognized as a fact that it was an object acquired and owned by the victim. Next, the "act that does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act that is permissible in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics or social norms in its surroundings. It does not violate social norms, and the act that does not violate social norms, and the illegality of a certain act is excluded should be determined individually by considering the specific circumstances and on-site and reasonable basis. Thus, in order to recognize such a justifiable act, the following requirements should be met, such as the motive or justification of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method, the balance between the benefit of protection and the benefit of infringement, fourth urgency, and the supplement of the means or method other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do36360, Oct. 26, 28, etc.).