All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The Defendants’ act of obstructing the Defendants’ access to the construction vehicles constitutes an unlawful infringement at the present time. Accordingly, the Defendants’ act of cutting locks and installing the same locks to prevent the enormous damage caused by the delay in construction constitutes a legitimate defense, mistake in law, wording, emergency evacuation or lawful act, etc., and thus, the illegality or responsibility is excluded.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

2. In order to establish a legitimate defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, an act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, completion of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by an act of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9307, Mar. 29, 2007). Emergency evacuation under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of considerable reason to avoid present danger to one’s own or another’s legal interest. Here, “an act of considerable reason”, first, an act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interest in danger, second, the act of escape must be the one way to inflict the most minor damage on the victim. Third, an act of escape must be determined by mistake that the person’s act of escape itself requires social ethics or the spirit of law and order (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9365, Apr. 16, 2006).