The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the defendant unilaterally carried out the construction work in a situation where a dispute over the ownership of land occurred between the defendant and the defendant, and the defendant tried to stop passive construction and actively interfere with construction work.

Nevertheless, the defendant injured the victim's arms, and even if such an act does not meet the requirements for a legitimate act, the court below judged that it constitutes a justifiable act and acquitted the facts charged of this case, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) at the time of the instant case, the Defendant and the victim were in a civil suit surrounding the ownership of the instant land; (b) the victim attempted to move to scke in order to avoid construction from the right side of the scke, which is the date and time indicated in the facts charged; and (c) the Defendant prevented the victim from stopping his arms as indicated in the facts charged; and (d) the physical force of the Defendant used by the victim at the time does not exceed the extent to restrain the victim; and accordingly, (e) the victim’s physical force at the time appears to be not to exceed the extent to restrain the victim; and (e) the victim’s act appears to have been debrised at the dangerous scene in operation while actively interfering with the Defendant’s construction act. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s act was an act to the extent permissible under social norms, and there is no justification, means or method of such act, reasonableness of the motive or purpose, benefit and protection of the law and interest, balance, means or method other than the act.