The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The enforcement officer of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles attached a public notice to a provisional building (container boxes) owned and possessed by the contractor as a relation to the performance place subject to the enforcement of a provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of real estate possession at the time of the completion of the construction. The public notice was also proclaimed as the wind to remove the provisional building after the completion of the construction.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant did not take appropriate measures to prevent damage to the written notice.

However, the defendant did not have the criminal intent to impair the effectiveness of provisional disposition by damaging the notice.

In addition, it is difficult to see that the defendant is obliged to perform an act such as preventing the removal of the building after completion of the construction work or building another building and attaching a notice box, and it was anticipated that the construction works will remove the building and damage the notice door.

Since it cannot be deemed that such result could have been avoided, a crime of omission is not established.

B. The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In a case where a person, who is legally obligated to act to prevent the occurrence of the outcome of infringement of legally protected interests prohibited by the Criminal Act on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, was able to easily prevent the occurrence of the result by performing the duty, but fails to perform the duty by denying and neglecting the occurrence of the result, if the omission is equivalent to that of infringement of legally protected interests by the act, and thus, is worth the criminal law value equivalent to that of infringement of legally protected interests by the act, and thus, can be deemed as an act of commission of the crime, the duty of act can be punished as an omission in the same manner as the act of commission by the act is committed. Here, the duty of act is not only due to the act of omission, legal act, or preceding act