A. Although misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles damage the property owned by the victim is a legitimate act and not guilty, the court below convicted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (500,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to "an act which does not contravene social norms" 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 social ethics or social norms. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance of the protected interests and the infringed interests, urgency, and supplement of the protected interests, other means or methods than the act, etc., it constitutes a justifiable act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do1764, Oct. 28, 1986; 2004Do8530, Feb. 25, 2005).

However, it is intended to prevent the victim from using an office without complying with the agreement with the defendant. Even if the purpose or motive of the crime of this case is assumed to be justifiable, the infringement of the legal interests of the defendant does not seem to be an urgent situation at present, and the protected legal interests of the defendant are in essence superior to the legal interests of the victim whose legal interests are infringed.