The Defendant parked in an individual owned by a building owner and a tenant but could not be subtracted from the vehicle after the vehicle was parked, and the Defendant found the victim D's two uniforms of operation, and caused a large amount of voice over several times as to "where a person who was killed and injured does not leave his phone number." Although such act does not constitute a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on a justifiable act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

On April 25, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 12:30 on April 25, 2012, at the “Eyang store” for the victim’s 1st floor in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, for the reason that the victim does not deduct a vehicle parked in the parking lot exit; and (b) the Defendant found the above two-way store in which the victim’s phone number is “where it is no longer left in the parking lot parking lot,” and obstructed the victim’s operation of the two-way store by force by force.

According to the witness F and G’s legal statement, etc., the lower court determined that the Defendant F and G parked in the parking lot in order to leave the restaurant of the above building, and that the parking lot entrance was not sufficient to prevent the victim’s vehicle, and that the vehicle was known that the victim was a two-point vehicle operated by the victim and demanded the victim to cut off the vehicle. However, the victim did not cut off part of the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle cannot be parked outside the parking lot, and that the victim was drinking out of the parking lot without deducting the vehicle from the vehicle, and that the Defendant had the police contact the victim, but the victim did not deduction the vehicle at the police’s request.