A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules, in order to guide the Defendant, who was under the age of the Defendant, to the extent that the Defendant would have expressed the same desire as the facts charged in this case.

B. Even if not, the sentencing of the lower court (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, “act which does not violate social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act which is acceptable 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 violate social rules and thus, 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 interests of protection and infringement, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act, etc.

(1) The Defendant’s act is not contrary to social norms, and is difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s act satisfies the requirements such as legitimacy of its purpose, means and method, reasonableness, urgency, and supplement. In light of the following, the Defendant’s act is not contrary to social norms, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s act satisfies the requirements such as legitimacy of its purpose, reasonableness of means and method, urgency, and supplement.