A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 600,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 9, 2016, the Defendant damaged the property owned by the victim by extracting 15 glue trees from the market price where the victim E is situated at that place in the forest located in C and D around 11:0 on August 9, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement of witness E in the third public trial protocol;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the victim interfered with the passage of the site stated in the facts charged of the instant case, the only access road leading to the Defendant’s factory to the public (hereinafter “the instant site”) and nearby state-owned land by planting trees to the neighboring state-owned land and thereby interfered with the Defendant’s factory operation. As such, the Defendant’s extraction of trees constitutes a measure to protect the Defendant’s property right, and the Defendant’s right of passage over surrounding land can be established by removing trees, and thus the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

2. According to the evidence revealed earlier, even though trees were planted in part of the instant land, one of the vehicles appears to remain, and even if the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s right of passage over surrounding land, the Defendant applied for a disposition of obstructing passage or filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the right of passage over surrounding land against the victim, thereby rendering a quoted judgment (a subsequent quoted judgment).

In light of the fact that it is necessary to exercise the rights of pine trees according to the execution procedure after receiving the same amount of money, and that the act of the defendant is not appropriate and complementary to the defense of a political party or legitimate act.

Accordingly, the defendant and the defendant.