According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, male victims who were 57 years of age or older enter the house of the defendant without any influence from 0:00 a.m. of the accident of this case and walk the door door door opened to the underground room, leaving the string, and going out with the stairs leading to the 2nd floor. The defendant, as the home owner, opened the string door and opened the string door in the state of being mixed with the defendant's house, leaving the string door, she called the 0thmson, leaving the house, and she asked the victim to have the 1string door, but the victim, who was 0 years of age or older, did not have any desire to wear the above 4th anniversary of the victim's body, after leaving the house, she would be able to get the victim's compensation again with the victim's free will.

In light of the above circumstances, the defendant, a family owner, was able to see that the defendant's act was only an fluorous passive preventive act that prevents the victim's unfair behavior, and thus, the defendant's act was not unlawful in light of social norms. Although the defendant's act was fluorous so long under the influence of alcohol, as long as the defendant's act was a legitimate act, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's remaining female defendant, a female under the influence of alcohol, has a shock to the extent that he could not be held liable for the result of his death, even if he did not come beyond the future's shock, and the degree of his death was not reached. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's above act was not only an fluorative passive preventive act that prevents the victim's improper behavior, and thus, it is reasonable to view the defendant's act as a legitimate act, so long as the defendant's act was a cement shock to the extent that the other female defendant, a woman under the influence of alcohol, thereby making the victim's death a cement.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant's act does not violate social rules and constitutes a justifiable act stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act does not constitute a crime. It cannot be said that there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to a justifiable act, and the precedents of the lawsuit are not appropriate in this case, and there is no reason

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)