Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the representative of D, and Defendant B has been engaged in the management of the property, etc. of the same clan as the general duties of the same clan.

On July 18, 2009, the Defendants conspired and embezzled them by arbitrarily consuming the number of pine trees in the market price managed by the Defendants in the forest land owned by the clan Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant A by the police;

1. Part of the police statement concerning F;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. The reference inquiry report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written request for appraisal;

1. Defendants: Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsel’ assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendants asserted that the defendant's act of cutting down the pine trees of this case, which is an officer of the clan, was necessary for the relocation of the clan and was understood among the members of the clan who participated in the clan affairs, and therefore, it does not go against the social norms. However, in order to constitute a justifiable act, the defendants must meet the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the legal interests protected and the legal interests protected by the infringement law, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act. In this case, the above assertion is not accepted unless it is difficult to see that urgency or supplementary nature is recognized.

2. In addition, although the defendants argued that they had assumed consent from the clan members, the defendants should first be unable to obtain the victim's consent in order to recognize the presumption consent, which is the reason for the rejection of illegality.