The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. In relation to the destruction of documents on April 8, 2019 among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, as the chairperson of the association’s election management, has teared one copy of a written resolution that was invalid in order to eliminate the illegality that may arise in the voting process and to hold an election in a fair manner. Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the Defendant, despite the misunderstanding of facts and the misunderstanding of legal principles, even if the above act is a justifiable act that does not go against social rules, and thus, the illegality is eliminated.

2) Of the facts charged in the instant case, with respect to the destruction of documents by April 9, 2019, the Defendant found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged without having teared three copies of a written resolution in the name of G and three on-site voting. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) Of the facts charged in this case, the term "act which does not violate social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, among the facts charged in this case, refers to the act permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether certain act is justified as an act that does not violate social norms, and thus, the illegality of which act is excluded should be determined individually by rationally and reasonably under specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such a 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; (iii) balance between the benefit and the benefit and interest in infringement; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3000, Sept. 26, 2003).