The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that E is owned by the Defendant’s husband G, and the victim did not possess the land and did not deliver it at the same time, and the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “self-help act” under the Criminal Act as to the assertion of factual mistake refers to an act to avoid the impossibility or significant difficulty of the exercise of the claim in a case where it is impossible to preserve the claim by the statutory procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9418, Mar. 15, 2007, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, at the time of the crime of this case, the land Samsung at the time of the crime of this case, the ownership was transferred to a third party, not the defendant’s husband, and the defendant was unable to preserve the victim’s right to claim the transfer of the land by the statutory procedure. Considering that the circumstance in which the ownership of the land belongs is unclear, the defendant’s act that makes it impossible for the victim to enter the land, etc. by stockpiling the soil with the access of the land used by the victim, cannot be deemed as an act of self-help under the Criminal Act, and thus, the defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. An ex officio determination: (a) the appellate court may ex officio decide on the grounds that affected the judgment even if the grounds for appeal are not included in the statement of reasons for appeal; (b) thus, in a case where the defendant appealed on the sole ground of mistake of facts, the appellate court reverses the judgment of the first instance on the grounds that the sentencing was unfair ex officio, and may determine a minor sentence than the sentencing of the first instance on the grounds that the sentencing was unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do1021, Sept. 11, 190); and (c)