The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing) is as follows: (a) the victim removed the doors of the toilet of this case, which is a common toilet, and abandoned them with the walls; (b) the defendant committed against the defendant to resist the act of such victim; and (c) there is no possibility that the defendant would follow the procedures under the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the act of opening the doors of toilets and piling up the walls that have been used every day; and (d) such act constitutes a legitimate act that constitutes a legitimate defense to defend the current unfair infringement or that does not go against social rules.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged without confirming the joint toilet recognition map, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts, self-defense, and legitimate act (the Defendant’s assertion of organized errors or errors in the summary of his oral argument on May 23, 2017, which was submitted after the deadline for submitting the appeal, is determined within the scope of supplement of the grounds for appeal). The sentence (500,000 won) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

As to the assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court, based on the evidence in its judgment, found the following facts, and it is difficult to readily conclude whether the toilet of this case is part of 3.97 square meters, which is recorded as a change in the registry, and even if the toilet of this case is a common toilet, the Defendant’s attempt for self-help cannot be deemed a justifiable act because it did not meet the requirements of reasonableness and supplement.

The third floor of cement block roof and mentor block block roof of the Seoul Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the third floor of the cement block structure, the appurtenant building, are owned by 23 co-ownership, including the defendant and the victim D (hereinafter referred to as "D"), respectively.

D The area in which D is resident is 2m 2m 10m m m , 5m m 60m m m .