(a) Standard for determining justifiable acts;

(b) The case holding that even if a building was acquired with the misleading knowledge that the use of the attached parking lot part of the building was a residential purpose, using it for residential purpose cannot be deemed a justifiable act in view of the

A. Whether a certain act constitutes a justifiable act as a ground for excluding illegality should be determined reasonably and reasonably in accordance with specific cases, and whether it is legitimate or not. Thus, to be recognized as a justifiable act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) legitimacy of the means or method; (c) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (d) formation of rights to protected legal interests and infringement legal interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary requirements that there are no other means or method other than the act.

B. The case holding that the defendant's act does not constitute a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules, considering the fact that the defendant's use of the underground floor was mistakenly known to be a residential person and the defendant acquired the building, in light of the fact that the defendant used the underground floor for residential purpose despite the fact that the head of the competent Gu received a corrective order and the defendant knew that the use of the underground floor for residential purpose was in violation of the law, and that the underground floor was partially designated as an annexed parking lot for public interest and its use was designated as an annexed parking lot pursuant to the Building Act and the Parking Lot Act related to the Parking Lot Act.

(a)Article 20 (a) of the Criminal Code; Article 14 of the Building Act; Article 19-4 of the Parking Lot Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do3248 delivered on March 8, 1983 (Gong1983,695) 86Do1809 delivered on January 20, 1987 (Gong1987,324) 92Do1520 delivered on September 25, 1992 (Gong192,3052)

Defendant

A co-inspector;

Seoul District Court Decision 94No6379 delivered on June 9, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the facts of this case, the defendant was designated as an attached parking lot at the time of the building permit or completion inspection, and thereafter the defendant purchased and used it for residential purposes without using it for the original purpose of parking lots from October 1993 to November 10 of the same year, as the owner of one story 40.53 square meters above ground floor 148.53 square meters above ground floor 103 square meters above the above underground floor in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul (hereinafter omitted) in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul"), the court below confirmed that the above ground floor of the building was designated as an attached parking lot at the time of the above construction permit or completion inspection, and that it was not stated in the above order of correction by the Gu office on October 12, 1993. However, even if the defendant purchased it as part of the apartment house with the above building management ledger or the building's trust on the ground that the defendant purchased it with the above public official's purpose of use or trust in the above, it should not be guaranteed.

2. However, whether a certain act constitutes a justifiable act as a ground for excluding illegality should be determined reasonably in accordance with specific cases, and whether it is legitimate or not. Thus, to be recognized as a justifiable act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method; (c) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (d) formation of the right to benefit and protection of the law from infringement; (v) formation of the right to benefit and protection of the law from infringement; and (e) supplementary requirements that have no means or method other than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1520, Sept. 25, 19

However, according to the records, the above underground floor was not entered in the building management ledger of the building of this case as a house, and the defendant was found to have used the above underground floor for residential purpose even though he was ordered to correct the above underground floor by the head of Seongbuk-gu and knew that the use of the above underground floor for residential purpose was in violation of the law, and the above underground floor was designated as an annexed parking lot for public interest by the Building Act and the Parking Lot Act which stipulate that part of the building should be designated as an annexed parking lot for public interest and the purpose of its use is designated as an annexed parking lot. In light of the circumstances that the defendant acquired the building of this case with erroneous knowledge that the above underground floor was residential purpose, the defendant's act cannot be deemed a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds as stated in its holding. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimate act, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)