The judgment below

All convictions are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term “act which does not contravene social norms” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected interest and the infringed interest, urgency, and supplement of the said act without any other means or method other than the said act, it constitutes justifiable act.

I would like to say.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on October 28, 1986, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8530 Decided February 25, 2005, etc.). 2. According to the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court: (a) based on the evidence adopted by the lower court,: (b) determined that the Defendants were dissatisfied with the Defendants, who were the representatives of occupants of the D Apartment at Yangju-si; (c) E, the representative of occupants of the D Apartment-si; (d) the opposing party; (b) the Defendants, who were the Defendants of the F Committee, were to file complaints against the Defendants regarding the Defendants’ entry of the meeting to the residents’ conference room used by the residents’ conference room; and (d) attached separate locks

2. On October 18:30, the court below affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants’ act does not constitute a justifiable act, on the ground that the Defendants’ act did not constitute a justifiable act, on the following grounds: (a) attempted to hold a meeting again at the above office; (b) the door locked, locked, locked, and locked, and jointly damaged the locked with the upper lock amounting to KRW 5,00,000 in the market price.

3. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the records, the election of the officers of the council of occupants' representatives of the above apartment was held on December 28, 201 and E was elected by the president, and the residents including the defendants committed an excessive disbursement of election expenses and election procedure around January 2012.