The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms and is thus dismissed from illegality.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant (the penalty amount of KRW 2,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.

On the other hand, whether a certain act constitutes a justifiable act as a ground for excluding illegality should be determined reasonably in accordance with specific cases. To be recognized as a justifiable act, the following requirements should be met: legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; legitimacy of the means or method of the act; reasonableness of the means or method; balance between the protection of legal interests and the infringement of legal interests; fourth urgency; fourth urgency; fifth, supplementary requirements must be met without any means or method other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do8530, Feb. 25, 2005; 2001Do3923, Sept. 28, 2001). In this case, the Defendant’s act satisfies the requirements of justifiable act, such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose; and reasonableness of the means or method, etc.

It is not recognized.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's misapprehension of the legal principle is without merit.

B. In the instant case, the determination of the illegality of sentencing was made on the ground that the Defendant had damaged the reputation of the victim on two occasions, and that the Defendant had “explosiveed the scope of legitimate exercise of rights” by the court, despite having received the decision of disposition (in the case of indirect compulsory enforcement amounting to KRW 200,000 per time), the crime was repeated. In light of the method and period of the crime, the content of defamation, etc., the crime is not likely to be committed.

The defendant, following the judgment of the court below, denies the liability for the crime, and makes the defendant feel wrong.