The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court’s judgment on the grounds of appeal merely stated that the Defendant had expressed the victim’s desire to take part in the trial cost and to oppose it, and thus does not constitute a crime of defense of a political party or legitimate act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “act which does not contravene social norms” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms and thus, should be determined individually by rationally and reasonably considering the specific circumstances. Thus, to be recognized as a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance of the legal interests of the protected interests and infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003); (iii) the defendant’s act of defense at the time of infringement by a legitimate defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act should be determined by taking into account not only the type of infringement of legal interests by the act; and (iv) the type and method of infringement; and (v) the defendant’s act of infringement by video recording 292.