beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The defendant does not pay a fine.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
- At the time of misunderstanding of facts and violation of laws and regulations, at the time of the instant case, the victim D was aware that the Defendant was in fact exercising the right of passage, and the victim D also was used as the passage of the Defendant.
The Defendant discovered that the victim D was a state-owned land and a road, and found the marine of the marine in the land, and demanded the victim D to suspend the use of the marine in the event the marine continues without permission. The victim D taken the Defendant without permission, disregarding the Defendant’s demand.
Therefore, the defendant's act at the time recognized the legitimate purpose to prevent the infringement of the right of passage and the infringement of the right of portrait that is currently in progress, and it is difficult to view that the victim's damage level was extremely minor and the benefits of protection and infringement have been lost balance because the defendant's act was standing 5,00 won or more, and it is recognized that there is a problem that it is difficult to remove cultivated products if the mother is so large that it is difficult to remove the cultivated products if it is difficult to secure the defendant's right of passage due to the growth of crops, and thus, it is recognized that it is illegal as "an act which does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.
2. Ex officio determination - Amendments to Bill of Indictment and the occurrence of reasons for reversal as to the act of assault in the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor cited the victim D’s cell phone and recorded the defendant in the facts charged of assault in this court, and applied for amendments to Bill of Indictment to delete the phrase “the defendant had affixed a photograph ..................................., the subject was changed by this court’s permission.
Therefore, it is judged guilty of the facts charged before the amendment.