In a case where the Defendant was charged with the Defendant’s act of destroying the locking device and entering a specific heading room in accordance with ordinary social norms, in a case where he was charged with the Defendant’s act of destroying the locking device of Party A’s property and destroying the fall and impairing the structure under Party A’s management by putting it out into the new heading room, on the ground that he was found not guilty on the ground that the Defendant’s act of destroying the locking device and entering the specific heading room was acceptable in light of ordinary social norms, in light of ordinary social norms, when he received construction work due to the Defendant’s non-payment of the construction work from Party B, and was transferred from Party B who opened the specific heading room immediately after the completion of construction.

The Defendant was not paid the construction cost after receiving a subcontract for the structural part of the structural construction from the construction business operator who constructed the B-owned Ba, and the Defendant was also charged with the possession of the B-do 302 Do 302 Do Do Do 302 (hereinafter “302 Do Do Do 302”) from the commencement of possession immediately after the completion of construction due to the failure to receive the construction cost. The Defendant was charged with the Defendant’s act of removing the Do Do Do na Do Do Do na from the Do 302 Do Do Do 302 (hereinafter “ Do 302”). At the same time, the Defendant was charged with the act of destroying the Do Do na Do na Do

The case holding that the defendant's act of using urban gas at 302 after being lawfully transferred from the joint occupant Eul, while applying for the use of urban gas at 302; the defendant commenced exclusive possession by changing his clothes and scam number; the defendant has a construction work claim related to 302; therefore, it is reasonable to view that he acquired the right of retention by starting possession as above; it is reasonable to regard the defendant's act of using the above 302 as a lawful possession since the article brought to the above 302 was removed and scam changed; the defendant then replaced the scam with Eul's consent, knowing that the scambling of 302 was replaced, and it seems that the 302 at the time was replaced only with the scambling, and since the defendant's act of using the scambling and scambling the scam for the purpose of selling or leasing the scambling the scam, and thus, it is doubtful that the defendant's act of using the s scambom was destroyed and damaging.

Articles 20, 319(1), and 366 of the Criminal Act; Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Dual Systems et al.

Attorney Kim Yong-young

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Facts charged;

Nonindicted 1 was the person who constructed ○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant loan”) with the representative of Nonindicted Co. 2’s company, and Nonindicted 3 was the person who subcontracted the construction of the building outside walls, etc., and the Defendant was the person who performed the construction of the building under a subcontract for the construction of the building. On November 19, 2017, when the owner of the building transferred the ownership of the building from Nonindicted 4 to Nonindicted 5 and the payment of the construction cost is not smooth, Nonindicted 1 was willing to arbitrarily replace and exercise the right of retention.

On May 2018, the Defendant, in collaboration with Nonindicted Party 1, removed and replaced it with a new laver by removing the laver, which was owned by Nonindicted Party 5 of the Victim’s Non-Indicted Party 5, by means of the change of the password of the laver’s laver’s 302, and entered the said 302, thereby damaging the aesthetic value of the laver’s laver’s laver’s laver’s laver’s laver’s laver’s laver’s laver’s laver’s.

2. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence of this case.

A. Nonindicted Party 1, the representative of Nonindicted Co. 2, completed the construction of the instant loan, but failed to receive the construction cost, which was immediately after the completion of the construction, the construction of the instant loan and the commencement of possession therein on October 2017.

B. around December 2017, Nonindicted Party 1 agreed with Nonindicted Party 5, who is the actual owner and owner of the instant loan, to hold Nonindicted Party 1 responsible for the lien and to divide the sales price of each of the instant loan units. Nonindicted Party 1 shared the password with Nonindicted Party 5 for the sale of each of the instant loan units until March 2018.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for the instant lending construction work from Nonindicted Co. 2, but failed to receive the construction cost, and thus, was transferred from Nonindicted Co. 6’s vice president of Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd. the possession of the instant lending 302.

D. After the Defendant commenced possession of the instant loan 302, it appears that only visited several times without changing the passwords (the Defendant applied for urban gas use of the instant loan No. 302 as of January 22, 2018), and thereafter, the Defendant changed the password by having the clothes and the walking of the instant loan No. 302 as of March 28, 2018 between the police officer around March 2018 and March 28, 2018.

E. Nonindicted 7, upon the request of Nonindicted 5 to introduce the applicant for the purchase of the instant Ba, knew of Nonindicted 7, who was asked to enter the instant Ba 302, but did not enter the Defendant for the reason that the Defendant changed the Gara password as in the preceding paragraph. Nonindicted 7: (a) around April 11, 2018, he heard a new password with Nonindicted 1 and replaced the Does with the Defendant’s Does and clothes that he brought to upon Nonindicted 5’s request.

F. When the Defendant failed to enter the instant 302 Dara due to the replacement, the Defendant entered the instant Dora with the consent of Nonindicted Party 1 and changed the Dora with the presence of Nonindicted Party 2’s employees (the instant facts charged).

3. Determination

A. To recognize a 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 protected interest and the benefit of infringement, urgency, and supplement of the said act without any means or method other than the said act. “Act which does not violate social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is acceptable in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6187, Apr. 28, 2006).

B. According to the evidence of this case and the above facts, the following circumstances are recognized.

① The Defendant was legally transferred the possession of the instant loan from Nonindicted Party 1, a joint occupant of the instant loan 302.

② On January 22, 2018, the Defendant applied for the use of urban gas in the instant Ba 302, and the Defendant started exclusive possession by changing the clothes and walking number from March 28, 2018 to March 28, 2018.

③ Since the Defendant has a claim for construction price related to the instant loan 302, there is room to view that the Defendant acquired a lien by starting possession as above. Nevertheless, around April 11, 2018, the goods brought up under the instant loan 302 were removed and the decline was replaced, and it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was deprived of a legitimate possession of the instant loan 302.

④ Since long time, the Defendant knew that the instant Ba 302 was replaced, and then replaced the instant Ba with Nonindicted Co. 2’s employees with the consent of Nonindicted Co. 1, the possession of which was transferred, as indicated in the instant facts charged. At the time, the instant Ba 302 appears to have been replaced only with the instant Ba 302, as in the instant facts charged. Around that time, each of the Ba Ba 302 was owned by several persons to sell or lease the Ba Ba’s official room, and thus, if the password was lost, it was replaced with the Ba (in light of this, it is doubtful whether the Defendant had the intention to destroy property or inflict a structure).

C. In conclusion, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act of damaging the village installed by the victim was an act to avoid an unreasonable infringement, such as the deprivation of possession. The degree of damage is not excessive in light of the Defendant’s interest, where the damage was caused by the fall and the subsidence of the structure of the Bara 302. In light of the above, the victim was aware of possession for exercising the right of retention by the construction business operator of the Ba of this case (2.b. b.). In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s act of destroying the lock devices of the victim to recover his possession and entering the Ba 302 of the Ba of this case, as a legitimate act that can be acceptable in light of ordinary social norms, and that the Defendant satisfied the requirements

4. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case are dismissed as illegality and do not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the verdict of innocence is publicly notified pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Jeong Jong-soo