A. The misunderstanding of the legal doctrine did first act in good faith, and the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine did not reflect this and did so and did so to the Defendants.

Inasmuch as the Defendants sent the message at a corresponding level, the Defendants’ act constitutes an act that is not contrary to the social norms, which is an act that can be accepted in light of social norms, and thus, it is justified.

B. Even if the sentencing is found guilty against the Defendants, each sentence against the Defendants (a fine of KRW 300,000) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine must be made on an individual basis, based on a concrete circumstance, whether the act is unlawful as a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms. To be recognized as a justifiable act, the following must meet the following requirements: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance of the legal interests of protected interests and interests infringed; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do507, Dec. 26, 2002; 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003). 2) Comprehensively considering the motive or circumstance leading to each act of this case; (iii) the content of the act of this case; and (iv) possibility of responding to the act through the legal means of this case, each of the Defendants’ acts satisfies the requirements of notifying or supplementing the victim.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendants’ above assertion.

B. The Defendants were punished for seriously verbal disputes with the victim, which led to the instant crime.