Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimate act.

In addition, the punishment of the court below (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, “act which does not contravene social norms” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act which is acceptable 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, 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 third protected benefit and infringed benefit, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act.

(2) The Defendant had a legitimate purpose to publicly display the provisions regarding traffic policies and circumstances, which did not consider the right of mobility of persons with disabilities, and to correct them, and to have citizens awareness of the human rights of persons with disabilities. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003).

Even if a non-reported meeting causes serious traffic congestion and mobilization of administrative power in the Gap small library by force, and the object of the act was a related person of the Gyeonggi-do office, but the object of the act was a specific bus company, thereby causing property damage to the bus company, and thereby, to the third citizen who was trying to use the bus as well as to cause property damage to the bus company.