2. Defendant B’s judgment against the Defendant.

A. Defendants 1 of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the part concerning the Defendants’ interference with each business of the Defendants) have the right to grassland over 39,878 square meters (hereinafter “the leased forest of this case”) out of 55,103 square meters in Yong-gun, Jeonnam-gun. Accordingly, each of the instant acts of interference with business of this case is justified due to a legitimate act or self-defense. 2) misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning the invalidation of indication in the Defendant A’s official duties) (the part concerning the invalidation of indication in the Defendant’s official duties) around July 23, 2012, Defendant A did not take part in the course of launching a warning sign on the decision of prohibition of interference with

3) Each sentence of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: Imprisonment of one and half years; imprisonment of one year and six months; and Defendant B; imprisonment of one year and six months; and probation and community service hours of 160 hours are too unreasonable.

B. Each of the above punishments against the Defendants of the lower court by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 7623, Jul. 29, 2005) provides that, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and the prosecutor, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant B, the crime committed during a period of three years after the completion or exemption of the execution of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment shall not be imposed.”

In other words, where a crime is committed during the period from the date the judgment became final and conclusive to three years after the date the execution is completed or exempted, a suspended sentence cannot be imposed on the relevant crime.

According to the records, Defendant B was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act at the Gwangju District Court on March 25, 2009, and the judgment was finalized on June 10, 2009, and its execution was terminated on September 23, 2009. Meanwhile, part of the crime of this case (the second half of 2012) among the crimes of this case (the second half of 2012) was finalized on June 10, 2009 and the execution was terminated until September 23, 2012, which was three years after the completion of the execution. < Amended by Act No. 11458, May 10, 2012>