A. Although there is a fact that the Defendant, as recorded in the facts charged, interfered with the assembly and put a person on a banner, this constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and thus, illegality is excluded.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The "act which does not violate the social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act as to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is justified as an act that does not violate the social norms, and thus, it should be judged individually by considering the specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the act; (ii) legitimacy of the motive or purpose; (iii) reasonableness of the means or method; (iv) balance between the interests of protection and infringement; (v) supplementaryness of the interests of infringement; and (v) supplementaryness of the act other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003); and (ii) the defendant's act of interference with the assembly of this case and property as well as the motive and circumstance of the act of damage; and (iii) the defendant's allegation that the act occurred due to the evidence duly adopted by the court below cannot be justified.

B. In light of the following: (a) the determination of the illegality of sentencing regarding the crime of this case; (b) the method of the crime of this case; and (c) the circumstances after the crime was committed; (b) the Defendant has been sentenced to fines twice due to the assault of the same veterinary law; and (c) the Defendant has been subject to criminal punishment once suspended execution.