A. Legal principles Defendant 1-A of the facts charged in this case

It was true that the victim took a bath to the victim E, such as the statement of Paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as “the facts of prosecution”), but, at the time, the victim did not pay the Defendant a close construction cost so that the victim did not attend the situation where the Defendant and the victim did not feel good and abusive, and the victim did not take a bath to the extent that it can be accepted by social norms, and constitutes “act that does not violate social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the first instance judgment. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “act which does not violate social norms,” which is the ground for the dismissal of illegality under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant of mistake of facts in the facts charged No. 1B

항(이하, ‘제②공소사실’이라고 한다.) 기재와 같이 피해자에게 ‘니 마누라 보지 팔아서 대금 집행하라, 개쌔끼야’라는 욕설을 한 사실이 없다.

Nevertheless, the court below found guilty of the facts charged No. 2, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. In light of the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle’s assertion, “act which does not contravene the social norms” as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether a certain act is justified as an act which does not violate the social norms, should be determined on an individual basis by rationally and reasonably considering the specific circumstances, and thus, to recognize such legitimate act, the first act should be determined.