In fact, it is true that the Defendant took a bath to the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, but this was made at the level of protesting the victim against the victim who did not give a bath to the victim, but it was made at the level of protesting against the victim by insulting and assaulting the victim, and thus, illegality is excluded as it constitutes a justifiable act

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on different premise, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

Judgment

A. The phrase “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 the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not violate social norms, and thus, it should be determined individually by considering the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the legal interests protected and the legal interests infringed upon, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary requirement that there is no other means or method than the act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3000 Decided September 26, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2017Do15226 Decided December 27, 2018, etc.) B.

In light of the above legal principles, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, at the time of the police investigation, the defendant: (a) as at the time of the police investigation, the defendant: (b) "At the time of the police investigation, the defendant: (c) was "at the time of leaving the dog while getting on a bicycle and getting on a house with a dog without a dog, it was called "at the opening of the dog," and (d) was said to have expressed a low desire for the test."