The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as the Dong representative of the instant apartment, is an employee of the Fmanagement Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), who was working as an employee of the said apartment company (hereinafter “the instant company”), due to the defect of the act detrimental to the fairness of the said bidding procedure at the meeting place indicated in the facts charged in the bidding process for the selection of the entrusted company, and the act of exercising physical power, such as the facts charged, on the part of the victim during the process of preventing such act, constitutes a justifiable act that does

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for the exclusion of illegality, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the "act which does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which can be accepted 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 a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, and thus, it should be determined individually by considering 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 of the act; (iii) balance between the benefit and the benefit of infringement; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementaryness that there is no other means or method other than the act.

(2) In the case of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3000, Sept. 26, 2003). (2), based on the above legal principles, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is considered as the Dong representative of the E apartment of this case.