Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 7, 2014, the Defendant removed and made effective use of the steel fences around the market price (700,000 won for the victim's assertion price) on the ground that the victim's land located in Gyeonggi-si C was obstructed by the steel-rein fence installed near the land boundary, even though the victim tried to escape a farmer from a nearby state-owned land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including DNA statements);

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. On-site photographs and related photographs;

1. Application of land sales contract or a copy thereof;

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for not less than Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The Defendant’s defense counsel on the assertion argues that D’s act of self-defense or legitimate act is a removal of the fence of this case as a self-help for the deprivation of possessory right, even though D agreed to acquire possessory right on the land within the fence of this case and fulfilled this agreement to E, since D installed the fence of this case, which plays a new role of boundary, in violation of this agreement.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the place where the fence of this case is located is limited to the land of Gyeonggi-gu or its adjacent state owned by the wife of the D, and it does not seem that E or the defendant occupied the land under the contract of the defendant's assertion.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.