Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that it constitutes a justifiable act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: around 15:00 on January 16, 2010, the Defendant, as the owner of the 1st floor underground and the 3rd floor above the 1st floor above the 1st floor above the above building, damaged the victim’s reputation by openly stating the fact that “The Defendant, as the owner of the 1st floor above the 2nd floor above the 16th floor above the 16th floor above the 1st floor below the 1st floor above the 1st floor above the 2nd floor below the 1st floor above the 1st floor above the 1st floor above the 2nd floor above the 16:00 on the 16th floor above, damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out the above remarks to the 18th floor below the 10th floor below the 16th floor below the 16th floor below the 2nd floor above, thereby damaging the victim’s reputation by openly disclosing the 18th floor above the 10th floor above.

B. The term “act that does not contravene social norms” under Article 20 of the relevant legal principles refers to an act that 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, should be determined individually by considering the following specific circumstances: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; and (ii) the means of the act; or (iii) the means of the act.