The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended separately.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable for Defendant A (the penalty amounting to KRW 500,000) to be sentenced.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal doctrine constitutes a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, “act which does not contravene the social norms” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms and thus, should be determined individually by considering the following specific circumstances: (a) the motive or purpose of the act; (b) legitimacy of the act; (c) the means or method; (d) the balance between the benefit of protection and infringement; (v) the benefit of infringement; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003). According to the evidence duly examined by the court below, the defendant’s act was legitimate as an act that the victim was suffering from conflicts with the victim due to the evidence of apartment repair work; and (e) the defendant did not hear his opinion as stated in the criminal facts of this case.