1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the argument that the Defendant’s act constitutes an act of social reasonableness as a resistance to the substantive and procedural unfairness of the Jeju Naval Base Construction Project constitutes a new argument that is not a legitimate ground of appeal only after the final appeal. However, we examine it ex officio.

"Justifiable act" or "act which does not contravene social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether a certain act is justified as a legitimate act which does not violate social rules, and the illegality is excluded should be determined on an individual basis under specific circumstances.

In addition, to recognize any act as a legitimate act, requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the third protected interest and the infringed interest, fourth urgency, and fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act should be met.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4688 delivered on September 30, 2005). Each of the crimes committed by the Defendant against each of the Defendant committed an act of obstructing construction or causing injury to a person or police officer related to a construction company or a police officer under his/her own judgment that the construction of a public-military complex tourism complex, which is a State-owned project, was illegal or unjust. In light of the circumstances determined by the lower court, the method or method of the act cannot be deemed reasonable, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a justifiable act.

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2