Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

At around 14:00 on March 20, 2013, the Defendant: (a) laid down trees in a dry field of approximately 144 square meters owned by Nam-gu B network C without a right to cultivate, and (b) destroyed and damaged a total of KRW 40,00,00,000 at the market price of the sloping trees, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 5,000, 1,000 for each dry field where the victim D is depthd.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is a legitimate act where the victim does so in depth on the land in which the Defendant developed.

"Acts which do not violate social rules" in Article 20 of the Criminal Code refers to acts which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and what acts are legitimate acts which do not violate social rules and thus are dismissed, and the decision should be made individually by examining the appropriateness of the acts, based on specific circumstances, in accordance with the concrete circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6243 Decided December 24, 2009, etc.). In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s above act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act: (a) the Plaintiff and the injured party asserted the right to cultivate the instant land; (b) the Defendant and the injured party have filed a civil lawsuit against the Defendant for the delivery of the instant land; and (c) the Defendant and the injured party repeated the other party’s act of destroying the instant land upon planting agricultural crops.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion.