The defendant shall be innocent.

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant is a building owner who is a resident of the C building at Guluri, and the victim D is a building owner who newly constructs a tenement house on the E-ground.

On November 1, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the construction of the victim's tenement by force with the consent of the residents of C's building on the F's ground of the Guri-si.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion was a fact that he accumulated a wall as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, there was another access road, the installation of the victim’s tenement house interfered with the victim’s construction of the instant wall.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Even if there was a interference with the construction work

However, since the fence owned by C was illegally removed from the victim's side in order to restore it to its original state, the defendant spacks the fence again with the consent of the residents of C in order to restore it to its original state, so it constitutes a legitimate act.

B. According to the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by this court, ① G, the victim of which is the representative director, started construction of a new apartment house on the ground E at the time of Guri-ri on August 2015, 2015, and H, the site manager of the site, was installed on August 20, 2015, in order to secure access roads to the construction site.

C. The fence of the building (joint ownership of the Defendant, etc.) was removed, and the summary order of KRW 3 million was issued on August 31, 2016 due to the crime of property damage, which became final and conclusive as it is upon the issuance of a summary order of KRW 3 million (definite District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 8938), ② After which the Defendant installed a fence as stated in the facts charged in the instant case with the consent of the residents of the building C on November 1, 2015, and ③ on February 24, 2016, the victims ordered the employees to re-examine the fence installed by the Defendant as described in the facts charged in the instant case, and on September 21, 2016, it became final and conclusive upon the issuance of a summary order of KRW 2 million (definite District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2017Da10733, Sept. 21, 2016).