(2) The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 1.3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) With respect to the determination of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the defendant constitutes the elements of the crime of non-compliance with eviction, the court below also asserted the same as the purport of appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion.

As a result of a thorough comparison of the judgment of the court below with the records, the decision of the court below that the defendant's act constitutes a crime of non-compliance with the eviction under Article 319 (2) of the Criminal Act shall be justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding

(2) On the other hand, "act which does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules and thus, the illegality should be avoided, based on specific circumstances, and it should be determined individually. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) legitimacy of the means or method of the act; (iii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iv) formation of the right of legal interest between the protected interest and the infringed interest; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8587, Feb. 18, 2005). So, even if the Defendant sought the victim due to the need to look at the issues relating to the lease with the victim, the agreement has been reached.