The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant is likely to collapse the retaining wall around the above apartment site when a construction vehicle transporting construction wastes emitted from the reconstruction site near the above apartment site in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, where passing through the roads around the above apartment site, and it is likely to cause damage to the above apartment residents due to noise, vibration, etc. emitted from the above construction vehicle, and thus, it constitutes self-defense or legitimate act. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal principles as to self-defense or legitimate act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Whether a certain act does not violate social norms and the illegality of a certain act is excluded should be determined on an individual basis by taking into account specific circumstances. Thus, to recognize such a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003); and (ii) to establish legitimate defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense should be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of the legal interests infringed by the act of infringement; (iii) method of infringement; and the type, degree, etc. of legal interests that may be infringed by the act of infringement and the act of defense

(2) In light of the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the G Union, which implements reconstruction works in the vicinity of the above C apartment, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9307, Mar. 29, 2007).