The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, destroyed CCTVs by attaching tapes to prevent the illegal photographing of the CCTV installed by the victim.

The illegality of the defendant's act of destruction is excluded because it constitutes a legitimate act or a legitimate defense as an act to restrain illegal photographing.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination 1) Article 457-2(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “Where a defendant declares a more severe punishment than that of a summary order with respect to a case for which a formal trial has been requested, the reasons for sentencing shall be stated in the written judgment.”

According to the records, on March 5, 2020, the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 by the Busan District Court Branch of the Dong Branch of the Busan District Court on March 5, 2020, and on March 11, 2020, the defendant requested a formal trial against the above summary order on March 11, 2020, and accordingly, on July 10, 2020, the court below sentenced the defendant to a fine of KRW 70,000,000 on July 10, 200, and it is recognized that there was a lack of reasons for sentencing in the written judgment.

The court below sentenced a more severe punishment than a summary order on a case for which the defendant requested formal trial, but omitted the reasons for sentencing in the written judgment, thereby violating Article 457-2 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

2) However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles still becomes subject to the judgment of this Court, and we will review below.

3. We examine the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, and the Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. The lower court, under the title “judgment on the legitimate act of the Defendant and his defense counsel and on the legitimate defense of the party,” stated in the judgment of the lower court, the grounds for