A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, committed an act as stated in the facts charged in the process of protesting against the decision to invalidate the registration of an unreasonable candidate by the apartment election commission, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, even though it is a justifiable act that does not violate the

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the issue of whether a certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms should be determined individually under specific circumstances. To recognize such legitimate act, first, the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method, the balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests, fourth urgency, and fifth, the supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8074, Apr. 27, 2006). 2) Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant registered as a candidate for the election of D apartment as a candidate for the same representative, and the above apartment election commission received the request for resignation from H on April 2, 2013, the defendant was unable to report the election campaign to the police officer on the ground that the above provision of the apartment election campaign was violated, and the defendant reported the election campaign to the candidate and the representative election management officer on May 13, 2015.