The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant's act of removing the signboard constitutes legitimate self-defense, as it infringed the legal interests of the defendant's put up by setting up the signboard at the press of the above signboard even though the victim did not have the right to use the press of the signboard owned by the defendant's set up by the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of destroying and damaging property is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, and the kind and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do2540 delivered on December 22, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9307 delivered on March 29, 2007, etc.) B.

In full view of the circumstances in paragraphs (1) and (2) below revealed by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant's act is not reasonable, and thus, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

(1) Even though the defendant was entitled to seek removal, etc. of a signboard against the victim based on the right to possess a signboard presses or the right to claim removal of interference based on ownership, the defendant did not recommend the victim to exercise his/her right in accordance with legitimate legal procedures.

② There was any factual or legal disability in exercising the right according to the above legal procedure.

There is no evidence suggesting that there was no possibility of expecting to go through the legal procedure.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.