A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Seized evidence 1, 3, or 4 shall be confiscated.

A. The Defendant’s crime of this case by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine constitutes a justifiable act based on the right of resistance guaranteed by the Constitution against the state agricultural situation promoted by G, etc.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant was faced with the state farming situation that severely damaged the constitutional value; (b) the Defendant was going to commit the instant crime according to one’s conscience; (c) there is no value to be designated as cultural heritage by the senior president; and (d) the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is less than 4 million won, the sentence of the lower court (a four years and six months and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, the term "act which does not violate social rules" under 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 certain act is justified as an act which does not violate social norms, must be determined individually by considering the specific circumstances and on a reasonable basis, under the following requirements: (i) the motive or justification of the act; (ii) the means or purpose of the act; (iii) the reasonableness of the means or method; (iv) the balance between the interests and interests in infringement; (v) the balance between the interests in protection and the interests in infringement; and (v) the supplementary nature of the act, other than the act, has no other means or method (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2680, May 27, 2010).