beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the Defendant, as recorded in the facts charged, misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he stockpiled on the land owned by the Defendant, and he he did not endanger the boundary of the land the delivery execution of which was completed by D, and it is not difficult to enter the above land in addition to the door cut off by the above brick, since there was another door other than the door cut off by the above brick, so it
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.
2. The crime of infringement on the effect of compulsory execution of real estate under Article 140-2 of the Criminal Act, which judged the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, shall be established by infringing on the real estate which was already clarified or delivered by compulsory execution, or by other methods
The term "other methods" refers to all acts of interference with the means or methods that may undermine the utility of compulsory execution, and the term "an act of impairing the utility of compulsory execution" refers to any acts of infringement that interfere with the use of, or the exercise of, the right to, the real estate already expelled or delivered by compulsory execution.
(2) On November 8, 2002, the lower court: (a) purchased the instant land and building (hereinafter “instant land and building”) in the course of compulsory auction on September 29, 201; and (b) completed delivery on February 29, 2012; and (c) the Defendant, who operated a child care center on the instant land and building, installed a cement brick (hereinafter “the instant brick fence”) with a size of 1,550cm wide and 120cm wide and 120cm wide as of March 12, 201 on the fence of the instant building (hereinafter “the instant brick fence”); and (c) installed a cement brick (hereinafter “the instant brick fence”) with a size of 17 square meters adjacent to the instant land and the instant building owned by the Defendant 17 square meters large and 43 square meters wide as of September 17, 2012.