The defendant's act of misunderstanding the legal principles is justified, the means and method are reasonable, and it has urgency and supplement, so the illegality is excluded due to the act that does not violate the social rules of Article 20 of the Criminal Code.

The illegality of the defendant's act is excluded according to the presumption consent of the victim.

The punishment (fine 500,000) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined by the court below, even if the defendant damaged the entrance knife in order to verify the illegal night lessons B, it can be sufficiently recognized that there was an intention to destroy the entrance knife.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

According to the above evidence of the court below, even if the defendant damaged the entrance fee in order to verify the illegal night lessons in B, the defendant's act is just, the defendant's act is reasonable, and the means and method are reasonable, and it cannot be viewed as having satisfied urgency and supplement.

Therefore, the defendant's act cannot be viewed as an act that does not violate the social rules of Article 20 of the Criminal Code.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Presumption acceptance refers to the case where it is anticipated that the victim would have naturally accepted if he/she had known the contents of the act in light of all objective circumstances at the time of the act even though the victim did not have actually consented.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8081 Decided March 24, 2006). However, according to the evidence above, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the victim's presumed consent at the time when the defendant destroyed the victim's entrance knobs.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

It does not impose any injury on unreasonable sentencing.

The defendant shall inflict damage by repairing the damaged entrance and flood.