logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.01.16 2013도6761
문서손괴
Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term “act which does not contravene 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 the act. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected interest and the infringed interest, urgency, and supplement of the said act without any other means or method other than the said act, it constitutes justifiable act.

I would like to say.

(2) On October 28, 1986, Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do8530 Decided February 25, 2005, etc.), according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act does not constitute a justifiable act on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, on March 27, 2012, as to the facts charged in the instant case where: (a) the Defendant, around 12:00, removed a public notice issued in the name of the chairman of the apartment committee in the name of “F by Dong 126,” which was attached at the same place in Songpa-gu, Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, about 126, to the effect that the Defendant’s act did not constitute a justifiable act.

3. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the evidence and records adopted by the court below, G is the representative of the Dong 126 unit of the instant apartment and the representative of the council of occupants' representatives of the instant apartment (hereinafter referred to as the "council of occupants' representatives"), and F is the chairman of the election commission of the instant apartment (hereinafter referred to as the "election commission"), and the Defendant is the occupant of the instant apartment and the female council of the instant apartment from June 9, 201 to June 9, 201.

The fact that it is the chairperson of the council, Article 20 of the management rules of the council of occupants' representatives violates Acts and subordinate statutes related to housing and management of multi-family housing, or these rules and election commissions.

arrow