The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the lower court’s judgment erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on emergency evacuation, as it cut the amnesty in order to avoid an urgent situation where earth and sand flows into the Defendant’s house due to the outflow of earth and sand from the legal surface of the pertinent land.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to constitute “emergency evacuation” under Article 22(1) of the relevant legal principle as to the assertion of legal principles, “emergency evacuation” refers to an act having considerable reason to avoid the present danger to one’s own or another’s legal interests. Here, “an act having considerable reason”, the act of escape must be the sole means to protect the legal interests in danger, and the latter must choose the most minor damage to the victim. Third, the benefits preserved by the act of escape should be superior to the benefits so infringed. Fourth, the act of escape must be considered as appropriate means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13609, Jun. 13, 2013). Meanwhile, in order to determine whether there is a possibility for the defendant to expect lawful act, the existence of such expectation should be determined from the perspective of average person’s interests instead of the actor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do12051, Oct. 23, 2008).

In accordance with the records of this case, there is no evidence to deem that earth and sand has been leaked in the pertinent land, and even if earth and sand has been leaked, the Defendant arbitrarily cut the amnesty without following procedures, such as requesting the competent administrative agency to take measures to prevent earth and sand from being lost.