A. The acts indicated in the facts charged of this case by the defendant claiming a legitimate act are deemed to be a person who commits fraud against the members who buy used goods on the Internet E site and its members make a speech that they will leave the goods by deceiving the victim. Therefore, the motive or purpose of the act is justifiable, its means or method is reasonable, its means or method is reasonable, the benefits protected by the defendant's act are superior to the interests of the victim that are infringed, and there is no other method to protect the interests of the members, and thus, it is not in violation of the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant alleged self-defense is merely an act identical to the description of the facts charged in this case for the purpose of receiving apology and defamation against the Defendant by raising the phrase “the Defendant C,” and “the Defendant is a mentally ill person” on the Internet bulletin. Thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense as stipulated in Article 21 of the Criminal Act, and thus, is dismissed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “act that does not violate the social rules” as stipulated by Article 20 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of a justifiable act refers to the act that is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and what act is legitimate that does not violate the social rules, and thus, is excluded from the illegality, under specific circumstances, shall be reasonably examined.