Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. “Act which does not contravene social norms” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. To recognize such a justifiable act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the protected interest and infringed interest; (d) urgency; and (e) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2903, Sept. 5, 2003). In this case, the Defendant’s expression “a woman with the same mental age, year to which the result was reached, women, and worco as it is an expression of the other party’s social evaluation or light sentiment; and (b) the relationship between the Defendant and the victim (the Defendant unilaterally and continuously sought convenience points of the victim’s work against the victim’s intent; and (c) the Defendant’s act lacks the purpose and method of expression or means of expression.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.