Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On June 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) entered into a mold construction contract with the victim E and Jeju F land (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) entered into a new warehouse construction contract for the construction of a warehouse on the ground of the Jeju F land (hereinafter “instant land”); and (c) following the completion of the mold construction, a dispute arises between the victim and the victim regarding the construction cost; (d) around July 7, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s work by obstructing the progress of the construction work by means of preventing the damaged person’s site without storing construction materials stored on the said land, on the ground that the damaged person does not pay the construction cost.
2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act is permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order and the social ethics or social norms in its surroundings, and it is difficult to evaluate it as an act that does not violate the social norms prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, on the grounds that it is difficult to determine it as an act that can be permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order and its social norms, and thus, sentenced a fine of KRW 400,00 to the Defendant, on the grounds that there is a dispute over construction cost.
3. The summary of the grounds for appeal [misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles] The Defendant did not bring a building material on the land of this case for the purpose of obstructing the construction of the above warehouse by the injured party, and did not bring a building material on the land of this case. However, it is nothing more than that after the completion of the construction work, the construction work is not carried out. Furthermore, the Defendant had a lien on the underground warehouse newly constructed on the land of this case, and thus the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules.
Nevertheless, the charges of this case are guilty.