The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

The charge that infringes on the utility of compulsory execution of real estate in the facts charged of this case is acquitted.

Punishment of the crime

On February 16, 2017, the Defendant: (a) cut and destroyed the bottom part of the columns of the said pents on the ground that the steel pents, which was installed with an amount of money equivalent to KRW 2.6 million, interfered with vehicle traffic in order to prevent the intrusion of wild animals into the C forest and forest land in Yeongdeungpo-si, through the victim B.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement to the effect that part of the defendant's legal statement (any fact cutting off iron fences) is made;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to B;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each complaint, each copy of each judgment, and each investigation report;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Penalty fine of KRW 1,000,000 to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da148

1. The alleged defendant's act of cutting steel fences constitutes a legitimate act, self-help act, or emergency escape that does not go against the social norms for public use of the land of this case.

2. Determination

A. An act that does not contravene social norms under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Thus, if a certain act is deemed to be an act that can take place under the current circumstances, such as the motive or purpose is reasonable means and method, and the protection of legal interests and infringement of legal interests are balanced, and thus, it should be deemed to be an act that does not violate social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11204, Mar. 27, 2014). On the other hand, whether a certain act is a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms, and thus, is dismissed, it shall be determined individually by examining the purpose and rational under specific circumstances, and such a justifiable act shall be determined individually.