A. In the event that the Defendants did not intend to take a dead will but did an act as described in the facts charged in the temporary room to preserve a clan property, and the Defendants did not obtain personal benefits, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the Defendants’ act, even though the Defendants’ act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on justifiable acts.

B. Even if the Defendants were found guilty, in light of the following: (a) even if the Defendants were guilty, they prevented the Defendants from withdrawing money from the clan account by preparing the private documents, etc. of this case to prevent the previous enforcement organ from individually using the clan property; (b) the Defendants’ former president first president, etc. was released from the prohibition of opening and leaving the clan account at 3 days after the Defendants’ act; (c) there was no special damage to the clan; (d) the Defendants did not obtain personal benefits; and (e) the Defendants made efforts to normalize the clan by holding an extraordinary general meeting on January 10, 2016 and by having X elected as the president, etc., the penalty (3 million won by each of the Defendants) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “act which does not contravene the social norms” prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles refers to an act permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and thus, it constitutes a justifiable act where a certain act satisfies the requirements such as the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the protected legal interests and the interests of the law and the interests of the law of invasion, urgency, and the supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3902, Apr. 13, 2006, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, it is examined in light of the above legal principles.