All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles) the Defendants’ act as stated in the facts charged of this case is an inevitable act in the course of presenting the victims who illegally occupied the apartment sale office (hereinafter “instant apartment sale office”) as stated in the facts charged of this case, and thus, does not constitute an act of self-help or a legitimate act (the Defendant B did not have any illegality by carrying the victim’s arms and legs out of the sales office of this case as stated in the facts charged of this case). Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendants guilty of all the facts charged of this case against the Defendants, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. 1) The phrase "self-help or legitimate act" under Article 23 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is reasonable to avoid the impossibility or significant difficulty of the exercise of the right when it is impossible to preserve the right by legal procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8081, Mar. 24, 2006). The phrase "act that does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is acceptable 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 rules and the illegality should be determined on an individual basis, based on specific circumstances. To recognize such legitimate act, first, the legitimacy of the motive or purpose, second, the means or method of the act, third, the protection interest and the benefit of infringement, fourth, the balance between the act and the benefit of infringement, fourth, and fifth, the method or method of supplementary act, etc. shall not be met.