The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the victim of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles installed a temporary gate on the land owned by the Defendant without permission, the Defendant sought an inquiry from the viewing house and the self-defense in order to prevent the infringement of ownership, the Defendant’s act is dismissed from the illegality.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Article 21 of the Criminal Act provides that an act to defend against the present infringement of one’s own or another’s current status by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles shall not be punishable when there are reasonable grounds. In order to establish self-defense, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, the method of infringement, the kind and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do2540 delivered on December 22, 1992, etc.). Meanwhile, the phrase “self-help” under Article 23 of the Criminal Act refers to a considerable action to avoid the impossibility or significant difficulty of the exercise of a claim when it is impossible to preserve the claim by the statutory procedure.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7717 Decided December 28, 2007, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, even if the Defendant was in violation of the land ownership due to the installation of the victim’s main gate as alleged above, unlike the direct exercise of tangible power over the body of the Defendant, the infringement cannot be deemed as urgent to the extent that it requires immediate defense, i.e., the Defendant, and the Defendant had already been in the process of a civil suit relating to the right to passage over land with the victim.