The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) was the fact that the defendant committed an act identical to the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, but the above act by the defendant is a legitimate act that occurred in the process of passive objection to the progress of the illegal construction of new livestock pens by the so-called comprehensive social welfare center, and that does not violate the social norms.

2. Determination

A. “Act which does not contravene social norms” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order or its surrounding social ethics or social norms. Whether a certain act constitutes legitimate act that does not contravene social norms and thus, should be determined reasonably under specific circumstances. To recognize such legitimate act, the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance of the legal interests of the protected and infringed interests, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14360, Aug. 20, 2014). (b) The Defendant asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s judgment in detail on the column “as to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel,” and on the basis of the aforementioned legal principles, rejected the Defendant’s consent to the report of forgery and construction attached thereto, including the instant case.

Even if the above construction was actually carried out in a peaceful manner at the time, and the process of the construction is being carried out by contact with the position of the so-called integrated social welfare center.