1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000;

2. Where the defendant does not pay a fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On April 20, 2015, the Defendant, on the ground that the passage of external vehicles to the farm roads located in Gyeonggi-gun C, Gyeonggi-do, would interfere with the Defendant’s eco-friendly farming and thus interfere with the Defendant’s environment-friendly farming. The Defendant, on the end of each side of the above farm roads, stiffed the stiff, and connected each stiff with the stiff, to the stiff, thereby interfering

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Investigation report (on-site chief executive officer- photographs, residents' telephone);

1. On-site photographs and satellite photographs;

1. Application of statutes on cadastral map;

1. Relevant Article 185 of the Criminal Act concerning a crime. Article 185 (Selection of Penalty)

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s act of interfering with the Defendant’s passage constitutes a justifiable act, on the grounds that D only obstructed the passage of vehicles to prevent damage to the road by using large trucks on the instant road, and that it did not interfere with the operation of the agricultural organization, and that there was another passage to enter into the dry field owned by D prior to the commencement of farming, and that there was another passage to enter the dry field owned by D.

Whether a certain act constitutes a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms, and thus, should be determined individually by considering the following specific circumstances. Thus, to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5077, Dec. 26, 2002). According to the evidence in this case, there was an urgent circumstance, such as immediate damage on the road, if the vehicle is not obstructed at the time.

It is difficult to see that the requirements are satisfied.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is accepted.