A. On October 9, 2014, the Defendant, a lessee of the land indicated in the facts constituting the lower court’s criminal facts (hereinafter “instant land”) located within the development restriction zone, located on Oct. 9, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant land”), organized and restored the loaded goods on the instant land at the request of a school juristic person Dental Institute, a lessor of the instant land, began to park a tourist bus on the part of the Defendant, which was restored to its original state, rather than the part of the instant land, by the victim, who was the former owner of the instant land, was not the part of the instant land, and began to park the vehicle along with the part restored to its original state.

In order to prevent such act of parking without permission, the Defendant: (a) inevitably carried the entrance part as a cream; (b) however, the Defendant secured the exit so that the parked vehicle can move; and (c) took measures to minimize damage, such as keeping the cream waiting, etc.

Therefore, there was a criminal intent to obstruct the defendant's business.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Even if the criminal intent is recognized, in addition to the above circumstances, if the act of parking without permission is neglected, the disadvantage that may arise to the school foundation D Private Teaching Institutes which is the owner of the instant land would be much more than the disadvantage that the victim would suffer if the act of parking without permission is prohibited, the act indicated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment should be deemed to be dismissed as a justifiable act (the defense counsel asserted that the above act at the first trial date of the first trial of the lower court constituted self-help, but it is alleged that the above act constituted a self-help even after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal, but no reason exists even if it was raised after its ex officio review) October 24, 2014.