The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as a victim due to the Plaintiff’s husband H’s fraudulent act, made a statement as to the facts charged in the instant case, and this constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act and thus, the illegality is dismissed.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Article 20 of the Criminal Code provides that the act that does not violate the social rules shall not be punished. It is clear that the concept of social rules is the basis for determining the most basic illegality. According to such provision, even if the act appears to meet the requirements for the composition of crime under the language and text of the law, its illegality may not be dismissed and punished only when it appears to be within the scope of historical social order created as one of the normal forms of living, and a certain legal nature is not completely unlawful as a result of social development.

It does not violate the social norms only if it is possible to evaluate that the punishment was conducted as a means of social reasonableness to realize it in light of the purpose value of a liberal democracy society (Supreme Court Decision 82Do357 delivered on February 8, 1983). In order to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the benefits of protection and infringement; (iv) balance between the benefits of infringement and the benefits of infringement; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300 delivered on September 26, 2003). According to the duly adopted evidence by the court below and the trial court, the defendant is a victim.