The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of the misapprehension of the legal principle has accumulated the retaining wall of this case on the land owned by the defendant, and it is anticipated that the above retaining wall will prevent water from drainage and cause flood damage to the crops that have been planted on the defendant's land, and the defendant damaged the retaining wall, and such act constitutes an emergency evacuation or a legitimate act of the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles which found guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 500,000 imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of legal principles 1) "an act which does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act which can be accepted in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics or social norms as a legitimate act that does not violate social rules. Whether a certain act is justified as an act that does not violate social rules, must be judged individually by rationally and reasonably under specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such a 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4688, Sept. 30, 2005).