권리행사방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact and misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the Defendant committed a minimum act to protect the Defendant’s right to freedom of business and the right to freedom of disposal of property against the lessee illegally occupied without paying rent. Thus, the Defendant’s act is dismissed as unlawful by self-defense or self-help.
2. Determination
A. In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do2540, Dec. 22, 1992). The act of self-defense under the Criminal Act refers to a considerable act to avoid the impossibility or significant difficulty in exercising the right when it is impossible to preserve the right by the legal procedure.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4328 Decided May 11, 2007, etc.). B.
Even if the victim occupied the defendant's commercial building without paying rent as alleged by the defendant, the act of the lessor's act of allowing the victim, who was the lessee, to temporarily set the door door of the commercial building without going through lawful procedures as prescribed by law, is obviously self-defense. Further, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was unable or considerably difficult to preserve his/her right to request the delivery of commercial building against the victim by legal procedure. Moreover, the defendant's act cannot be deemed as a considerable act to avoid the impossibility of preserving his/her right to request the delivery of commercial building. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a self-defense act.
C. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.