A. The misapprehension of the legal principle did not comply with the order of the administrative authority to generate noise below a certain level and to operate only 50/00 p.m., but did not follow it and did so excessively until late, thereby causing significant damage to the Defendant’s housing rental business.

Since the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act, the defendant's act does not constitute a crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, "act which does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, and thus, the illegality should be excluded, based on specific circumstances, and it should be determined individually and reasonably under the circumstances. Thus, to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) legitimacy of the act; (iii) the means or method of the act; (iv) balance between the benefit of protection and the benefit of infringement; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3000 delivered on September 26, 2003, etc.). We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, Defendant’s act cannot be deemed a justifiable act.

(1) The victim, at an investigative agency, is a matter of the noise of the rent of the instant case and the public official in charge, who filed a civil petition with the Gu office, measured the noise of the Deputy Director of the instant case and measured the noise below the standard value.