A. In the misapprehension of the legal principles, the illegality of the Defendant’s act of receiving five addresses, such as E, from the manager D constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules and thus, constitutes a justifiable act.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to the act permissible in light of the overall spirit of the legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms and thus, should be judged individually under specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the benefits of protection and infringement; (iv) balance between the benefits of infringement; and (v) supplementary nature of there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003). In light of such legal doctrine, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act of infringement of his or her right to seek consolation money (right to seek consolation money pursuant to defamation; and (d) the defendant's act of infringement of his or her address at least 5) is not disclosed.