The case holding that the act of removing a retaining wall at will without following the confirmation of the existence and scope of the right of passage over surrounding land and the judgment ordering removal of the retaining wall that obstructs the passage over surrounding land and the compulsory execution does not constitute a justifiable act regardless of whether or not the right of passage over surrounding land can be recognized.

Article 20 of the Criminal Act, Article 219 of the Civil Act

A

Defendant

Attorney B

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007No1880 Decided September 13, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below held that the retaining wall of this case is owned by the victims who corresponded to the land owned by the victims and becomes the object of the crime of causing property damage. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the object of the crime of causing property damage, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

2. In addition, if the victims did not agree to the removal of the retaining wall of this case, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion of illegality due to the defendant's legitimate act on the ground that the defendant's act of removing the retaining wall of this case without following the above procedure is illegal, regardless of whether the defendant can have the right to passage over surrounding land or not, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimate act, as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)