On September 18, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 19:00, at the home of the victim D, the lessee, who was the lessee, unpaid the above room room deposit; and (b) opened a entrance with the preliminary heat that did not receive any telephone, and intrudes on the residence of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on witness D's legal statement;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion of defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (including a fine of KRW 300,000, KRW 50,000 per day: The circumstances of the instant case, circumstances after the instant case, Defendant’s health conditions, etc.)

1. The alleged defendant, who is a lessee, had to make a request to the victim for consultation in order to resolve a smooth problem in demanding high-amount director's expenses without paying the difference.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not violate social rules and is a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Code.

2. The phrase “act which does not contravene social norms” 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 certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms, and thus, it 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 legal interests of the third protected interests and infringed interests, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act.

(Supreme Court Decision 2008Do699 Decided October 23, 2008).