The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s defense counsel filed on December 10, 2013 the appellate brief that was not timely filed after the lapse of the period for filing the appellate brief, and it cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal (the Defendant requested the appointment of a public defender after the lapse of the period for filing the appellate brief, and thus, refer to the grounds for appellate brief filed by the public defender after the expiration of the period for filing the appellate brief.

1) The construction project of the naval base for each business obstruction was enforced in a non- democratic manner despite the opposition of the residents. The Ministry of National Defense did not comply with the implementation agreement following the environmental impact assessment, and the Ministry of National Defense performed the naval base construction work, disregarding the conditions of the revised permission that the Cultural Heritage Administration attached to the naval base construction and neglecting the conditions of the revised permission granted by the Cultural Heritage Administration. Therefore, the naval base construction work has no value to be protected under the Criminal Act, and the defendant's act is justified

B) The Defendant was in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion) and went back to the old drum coast without going through the project team building in the future, and the old drum coast cannot be seen as a project team’s structure or its summary. 2) The sentence of the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in the month of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Each business interference with the construction of naval bases is being conducted with legitimate approval (the approval is lawful by the Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Du19239 Decided July 5, 2012), and it cannot be deemed an illegal construction, and the Ministry of National Defense did not comply with the implementation agreement under the environmental impact assessment.

The Cultural Heritage Administration shall carry out the naval base work.