beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.12.08 2017노2700

퇴거불응

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, the Defendant visited the E Service Center during its business hours to discuss the method of repair of mobile phones, but only the business hours have been terminated during the time when he was waiting for not being presented a reasonable solution, and there is no way to exercise any particular power against the employees of the said Center, including victims

In light of this, the illegality of the defendant's act of money in the center is excluded because the defendant's refusal to leave the center is an act of exercising consumer's rights and does not go against social norms.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that convicted the facts charged of this case is improper.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the term “act which does not contravene the social norms” as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether a certain act constitutes a legitimate act that does not contravene the social norms, and thus is dismissed as a legitimate act that does not contravene the social norms, should be determined individually by examining the specific circumstances and determining the illegality individually.

Therefore, in order to recognize such a 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) formation of the right of benefit and benefit from infringement; (d) urgency; and (e) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003). As duly determined by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the above act by the Defendant is reasonable and reasonable; and (e) requirements of balance between the means or method, supplementaryness or urgency of the act; and