The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a crime of property damage or constitutes a justifiable act, since the Defendant removed an unlawful notice containing false contents.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misapprehension of legal principles 1) If a document is destroyed against the owner’s will, the right to prepare the document and the qualification thereof is disputed, and even if it contains false statements contrary to the truth, it cannot be referred to as a document which is the object of the crime of destruction of documents (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1807, Dec. 28, 1982). Therefore, as stated in the judgment of the court below, as long as the defendant removed a written public notice prepared in the name of the chairperson of the election management by a victim C against his/her will and thereby impairs its utility, the act constitutes a crime of destruction of documents, regardless of whether the victim was entitled to use the name of the chairperson of the election management or whether the content thereof is true.

2) Whether a certain act is justified as an act that does not contravene social norms, and the illegality is excluded, should be determined on an individual basis by taking into account specific circumstances. Thus, 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) balance of the legal interests of protection interests and interests infringed; (d) urgency; and (e) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do507, Dec. 26, 2002; 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003). According to the records, the Defendant on September 2015, 2015: (a) the chairperson, the victim, the chairman of the Housing Management Committee; and (b) the Defendant’s promotion of the victim’s election management member around April 2015.