A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a pastor of the C church.

The Defendant, on April 12, 2016, in South Korea, at the time of around 21:50 Gyeong-si.

D. It was removed and destroyed by the reason that it interfered with the Defendant’s entry into the C church where the Defendant resides, a banner (7m in width, 90m in length) stating “traffic control guidance” equivalent to 20,000 won at the market price set up by the Victim E ( South, 34 years old) on the street.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Investigation reports (verification of matters permitted to occupy and use roads for the establishment of a drums), investigation reports (the statement of the executive director G of the F supervisory group);

1. A letter stating the opening of a road of 1-10 out of the F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs before crimes, on-site photographs, and CCTV duplicating photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is asserted to the purport that since the victim installed a banner on the only way to pass the C church in fact, the defendant forced to cut the banner for the passage of the church, it constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules or a legitimate defense.

However, according to the records, it is not illegal for the Gyeonggi-do Urban Railroad Corporation to install banners within the housing site development zone of this case and restrict road traffic, and in addition, in the Gyeonggi-do Urban Railroad Corporation, it is possible to find out the fact that it was possible for the defendant to leave the C church through the bypass road even though it was notified of the reasons for road blocking and the present situation and bypassing the road of this case, including C church in advance, even though it was notified of the situation of the road blocking and bypassing the road of this case, the defendant's act is socially accepted. In full view of the reasons, circumstances, and means of action of this case.