The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principle) did not proceed to the crime of occupational embezzlement and violation of copyright, and there was a long time to raise an issue to the victimized company by citing the examination issues of this case. Thus, the defendant's act did not meet the requirements of reasonableness, urgency, and supplement of the method among the legitimate acts.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the legitimate act.

2. Determination

A. The "act that does not violate the social norms" in Article 20 of the relevant legal principles refers to the act that is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms, and thus, the illegality is excluded, under specific circumstances, shall be examined and determined individually (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6243, Dec. 24, 2009). (B) The court below determined the reasons for appeal by the Defendant’s act in the facts charged constituted an element of occupational embezzlement and violation of copyright. However, the lower court appears to have cited the examination issue of this case in order to raise a problem about the political ideology of the victimized company, which is a public broadcasting company, and ② the victimized company is in a position to protect fairness and press as an agency for public broadcasting, and freedom of expression, and thus, it is possible that the Defendant arbitrarily allowed the damage company’s political ideology or access to the company’s internal test.

It is difficult to see, and this.