The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant did not infringe on the utility of the “Compulsory Execution” of real estate, the lower court convicted the Defendant, thereby misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the Defendant (the fine of KRW 800,000) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that D was awarded a successful bid for the land and buildings of Ydo-gun, Jeonnam-do on September 29, 201 and completed delivery execution on February 29, 2012. The Defendant: (a) accumulated cement bricks with 120cm wide and 1,550cm long at the fence of the entrance of the above real estate on March 12, 2012; and (b) therefore, it is examined whether the above act of the Defendant harms the utility of delivery execution of the above real estate.

B. Article 140-2 of the Criminal Act provides that "an infringement upon the effectiveness of a compulsory execution to immovables" shall be construed as "a person who intrudes on a real estate already pronounced or delivered by compulsory execution, or otherwise impairs the utility of a compulsory execution, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by a fine not exceeding seven million won," and the legislative intent of the above provision is to secure the effectiveness of a judgment ordering an surrender or surrender of a real estate and a compulsory execution."

C. The following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court: (i) the installation of a brick fence by the Defendant is determined to be above the land owned by the Defendant (the Defendant’s submission of a certified copy of the said F and G’s real estate register to prove that the owner was the Defendant and it was not clearly proven, and thus, is favorable to the Defendant); (ii) the above D’s building may sufficiently have access to the building by means of a way between the building and another building, other than the front door of the Defendant’s brick wall; and (iii) the Defendant he he has he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he saw.