1. On September 29, 2014, at around 16:00, the Defendant entering a building (former trade name: D) located in Gyeyang-gun C (hereinafter “D”), inputs the password of the entrance door number height, which the victim E was previously aware of in the name of F, into the building at issue, and intrudes into the building managed by the victim by entering the building above.

2. The Defendant damaged the property by putting the password of a numberk installed in the front door of the building under paragraph (1) at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) so that the victim may not have access to the building, thereby undermining its utility.

Judgment on the argument

1. The assertion defense counsel argues that the act of the defendant constitutes legitimate act or self-defense, and thus the illegality is excluded, since E, who was awarded a successful bid in the auction, deducteds the goods owned by the defendant from the building, entered the building to block such act, and replaced the present password.

2. “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 the act. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected interest and the infringed interest, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act, it constitutes a justifiable act.

I would like to say.

(1) According to the evidence duly examined by the instant court, the lower court determined on March 3, 201 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6761, Oct. 16, 201).