The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

Defendant

A does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine committed a breach of trust against the company. On the day of the occurrence of the instant case, Defendant B and C committed a breach of trust.

Therefore, Defendant A is prohibited from leaving the president room by urging the victim to solve the problem of piracy and problem, and Defendant B and C have only been doing so. As such, the above acts of the Defendants constitute a self-help or legitimate act, and thus, illegality is excluded.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: fine of 2 million won, Defendant B, and C: each fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, "self-help act" under the Criminal Act refers to an act that is necessary to avoid the impossibility or significant difficulty of the exercise of the claim when it is impossible to preserve the claim by legal procedure. Whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms and thus, the illegality of the act is excluded should be determined individually and reasonably under specific circumstances. To recognize such 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 between the protected interest and the infringed interest; (iv) balance between the protected interest and the protected interest; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other

(1) The Defendants filed a complaint with an investigative agency before committing the instant crime, and filed a complaint with the investigative agency against the victim, or the Defendant A filed a punishment after committing the instant crime, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court. In so doing, it appears that at the time of committing the instant crime, the victim was suspected that he/she committed an occupational breach of trust against the company operated by the Defendant A. However, the Defendants filed a complaint with the investigative agency prior to committing the instant crime.