The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, at the time when the Defendant entered the “C” camera operated by E (hereinafter “the instant camera”), as shown in the facts charged, anyone could have access to the said camera because it was already in operation.

The Defendant, while there was a civil dispute between E’s mother D and the building in which the instant car page is located, to collect evidence on the fact that D and E illegally changed the purpose of use and operate the car page, entering the instant car page constitutes a legitimate act that is acceptable in light of social norms.

The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant on the premise different from this is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. "Act which does not violate the social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act means an act which is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is justified as an act that does not violate the social norms and thus, should be determined individually by considering the specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the act; (ii) legitimacy of the motive or purpose; (iii) reasonableness of the means or method; (iv) balance between the interests and the interests of infringement; (v) supplementaryness of the means or method other than the act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5077, Dec. 26, 2002; 2004Do5148, Nov. 26, 2004; and (iii) evidence of the crime of this case should not be duly adopted by the victim at the time of the crime of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5148, Nov. 26, 2004).