The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the victim D has recorded the defendant's illegal business facts in his/her mobile phone and requested money and valuables by threatening that it will be wide. The defendant's act of destroying the victim's mobile phone in order to prevent such unfair infringement constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate self-defense or social rules.

2. The "act that does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Code refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and as a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms, the illegality of certain act should be avoided, based on specific circumstances, and it should be determined individually by considering the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the legal interests of the third protected interests and infringed interests, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3000 delivered on September 26, 2003, etc.). The Defendant made a statement at the police that “The Defendant made it difficult to deem the Defendant’s act as a justifiable act in light of the circumstances immediately before the crime, even though it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act satisfies the aforementioned requirements for the said political act.”