The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) is that the Defendant was exposed to radiation in the Dentalwon (hereinafter “instant hospital”) located on December 15, 2017 at the first floor of the Daejeon Jung-gu Daejeon District Office (hereinafter “the instant hospital”) and was exposed to radiation due to the negligence of the said hospital and caused pains such as dementia, real name, and skin disease, etc., and the Defendant’s act merely called for this purpose constitutes a justifiable act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on a different premise, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged not guilty in the lower court’s judgment as stated in the grounds of appeal. As long as it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act satisfied the legitimacy of the objective, the means or method of disclosure, the balance between legal interests and supplement, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that it does not constitute justifiable act

B. The judgment of this court 1) “act which does not contravene the social norms” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act which is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether a certain act is justifiable that does not contravene the social norms and thus, should be determined individually and reasonably under specific circumstances. To recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the benefits of protection and infringement; (iv) balance between the benefits of infringement; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 202Do5077, Dec. 26, 2002; 2014Do7302, Sept. 4, 2014); and (b) the judgment of the court below duly adopted and investigated by the party concerned.