The defendant shall be innocent.

In the facts charged, the Defendant is a fire-fighting manager of the “D” fire-fighting association located in the building in the Gangnam-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul.

In relation to the management of the above building, there is a dispute between the victim FD and the above E-mail meeting, and the victim is performing the affairs of (main) D at the security room of the first floor below the above building.

On July 12, 2012, the defendant was unable to freely enter the above security room because fire-prevention facilities are installed inside the security room in the victim's use, and the defendant damaged the property owned by the victim by replacing the above security room locks of approximately KRW 80,00 with the key repair hole in name, around 16:0 on July 12, 2012.

Judgment

1. The summary of the defendant's assertion is true that the defendant replaced the locks of this case; however, the locks belong to the co-ownership of the sectional owners of the building "D" (hereinafter "D") and obtained the sectional owners' instructions or approval; thus, the crime of causing property damage is not established. Moreover, since the defendant replaced the locks to perform his duties as fire safety controller, such act constitutes a legitimate act.

2. First, we examine whether the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act.

“Acts which do not contravene social norms” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to acts permissible 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 the motive or justification of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the protected legal interest and the infringed legal interest, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act, it constitutes a justifiable act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4732, Aug. 20, 2004). According to the evidence of this case, the Defendant is a building of this case as of May 29, 2012.