The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged found that the Defendant, at around May 3, 2016, discovered a notice of the result of the meeting on the above apartment Nos. 104-Ga, 5Ra, 6Ra and the elevator at the meeting of the representative council of occupants in Gwangju-si (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) as a general secretary (hereinafter referred to as the “representative council of occupants in the instant case”); and that at around May 30, 2016, at the meeting of the representative council of occupants in the victim occupant in the instant apartment, the Defendant removed the notice in his/her hands and concealed it.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “act that does not contravene social norms” as prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. As such, if a certain act satisfies the requirements of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests, urgency, and supplement that there is no other means or method than the act, it constitutes a justifiable act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8683, Oct. 17, 2013). (b) Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the act of the Defendant’s removal of the notice as stated in the facts charged constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social norms.

① On April 18, 2016, the Defendant, as a general secretary of the resident representative meeting (five members) of the instant case, was present at the “representative meeting of occupants for April 18, 2016, and was in the meeting place with E, an executive officer (technical director) of the representative meeting of occupants, opposed to the progress of the meeting of D, the chairperson of the representative meeting of occupants.

② The three executive officers of the rest of the Assembly of Residents including D, have proposed an urgent proposal for the dismissal of the Defendant as “other matters” and passed a resolution on the dismissal of the Defendant (three persons, two persons, and two persons) by three resolution, and the result of the representative meeting on April 19, 2016, which is next day.