A. In a situation where there is a large number of defendants, misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the act inevitably leads to the movement of the vehicle from around 3 to 5 meters due to the desire, threat, or disturbance of the people who want to get the vehicle parked. Therefore, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social rules, or an act for which the responsibility is avoided, or an act for which there is no possibility of expectation of lawful act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of the relevant legal principles ought to be made individually by examining, on the basis of specific circumstances, the following: (a) what act does not contravene social norms, and thus, the illegality is excluded.

To recognize 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) balance of the protection benefit and the benefit of infringement; (d) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there was no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7866 Decided January 15, 2015, Supreme Court Decision 2013Do786 Decided January 15, 2015).

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act was forced, or that there is no possibility of expectation of lawful act.

(1) The defendant was unable to deduct his/her vehicle from his/her parking vehicle due to a vehicle parked while driving such vehicle.