The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the fact-misunderstanding assault, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the facts charged, but found him guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Regarding the point of destruction of property by misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant’s act is to protect the security of the office and the privacy of its employees, and thus, it is dismissed that it constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

(c)

In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the sentence of a fine of one million won imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, since each statement by the victim G and witness D, which corresponds to this part of the facts charged, has credibility in light of the relevant circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts as alleged by the defendant.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Ultimately, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. Determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms, and thus, whether illegality is excluded should be determined individually by considering the following specific circumstances. Thus, to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method; (iii) balance between the interests of protection and infringement; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5077, Dec. 26, 2002; 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003). In light of the above legal doctrine, health class, the lower court and the first instance court are legally admitted and investigated by evidence.