The part of the defendant A, B, C, D, E, and F shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. The Defendant, at a fine of 50,000 won.

A. The Defendants’ act of misunderstanding the factual mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine constitutes a justifiable act in a situation where the safety of village residents is anticipated due to landslides, soil erosion, etc. caused by the construction of forest roads as stated in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “construction of forest roads”).

B. The lower court’s each sentence sentenced to the Defendants is unreasonable as it is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles 1) The Defendants obstructed construction by preventing the Defendants from using access roads to the construction site or from spreading them around the construction equipment for a long time, although the victims were under way to perform the construction of the instant forest road according to lawful procedures. In so doing, it was extremely difficult for the Defendants to take other lawful procedures in view of the period during which construction was obstructed, the content of the construction by the victims, and the progress of consultation

As such, the motive and purpose of the Defendants cannot be deemed to be justifiable, or the means and method are not reasonable, and there is a balance between the Defendants’ interests and the benefits infringed on by the victims.

(1) the Corporation shall not be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of urgency and supplement.

Therefore, it cannot be seen that this constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, and judged that the Defendants were guilty of the facts charged in this case.

2) In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated at the lower court’s and the lower court’s judgment, the possibility that the instant forest road construction project could have caused a landslide, etc., even if it was likely that the instant forest road construction project could have caused a disaster.

Even if the defendants agree with the victim, the application for provisional disposition, or the number of gold forces.