The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principles) of the defendant's statement of this case was derived from the mind that the victim would have embezzled the property of the clan as a member of the clan in order to keep the property of the clan, and therefore, the reasonableness of the purpose is recognized. The victim was an urgent situation in which the victim would take the agenda of election of the clan representative in an inappropriate manner, such as voting at a special meeting held by mobilization of his side members, and there was no other means. On the other hand, the victim did not have any means, while the victim was elected as the representative of the clan without proper verification, the damage caused to the clan by the victim would be compared with the reputation appraisal of the victim infringed.

Therefore, the defendant's remarks cannot be said to be illegal as a legitimate act.

Judgment

Article 20 of the Criminal Code provides that an act that does not violate social norms shall not be punished. The concept of social norms is stipulated as the basis for determining the most fundamental illegality. Accordingly, even if an act appears to meet the requirements for the composition of a crime in accordance with the language and text of the provision of the law, its illegality may not be immediately dismissed and punished only when it is deemed 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 is recognized as well as a value-free and contradictory to social justice, or if it is possible to evaluate that it was conducted as a means of social reasonableness to realize it in light of the objective value of a liberal democracy society (Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on February 8, 1983).