1. Of the judgment below, the part against Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and F shall be reversed.

2. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The acts of Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and F1 in the instant facts charged by Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and F are aimed at preserving the environment of Gohap and do not violate the social rules. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment of April, suspension of execution of one year, Defendant B, C, D, E, and F, each of three months of imprisonment, suspension of execution of one year of suspension of execution of one year) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment of Defendant G (one million won of fine) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Acts which do not violate social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to Gap, B, C, D, E, and F refers to acts which are permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order or social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as legitimacy of motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of means or method, balance of protected interests and infringed interests, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act, it constitutes a justifiable act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6761, Jan. 16, 2014). In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, even if Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and F committed the act of this case for public interest purposes, such as environmental preservation, in light of the method and frequency of the act in this case, it cannot be deemed that the act did not violate the victim’s new method or method, and circumstances.