The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as the manager of the partnership office in which the seal impression and various documents related to the property of the members are kept, has a duty to refrain from arbitrarily replacing the correction devices of the partnership office. Thus, even if this constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim was ruled to lose the president of the partnership prior to the redevelopment partnership of B, and the defendant was the person acting as the president of the partnership, and the defendant was the defendant's act at around 16:56 on March 27, 2015 at the entrance corridor of the above partnership office, the defendant brought the keys to the immediately preceding damage to the entrance entrance of the association office, and tried to change the gate of the association office. The defendant was able to recognize the fact that the victim's chest was damaged by a brupted bomb, etc., requiring multiple-day treatment. Accordingly, considering the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the situation at the time of the crime, the degree of injury inflicted upon the victim, etc., the defendant's act constitutes an act of attacking the intent of attack beyond a simple defense means, and it does not constitute a legitimate defense or a justifiable act.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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