A. The Defendant, at the time of bus riding, issued a bus entrance to maintain order, and did not interfere with the business of the victim by interfering with other passengers’ boarding or avoiding disturbance. The Defendant’s act of maintaining order does not go against social norms.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was found to have discontinued the bus in this case and prevented the passengers from getting out of the bus. The passengers who followed the bus in this case were laid out until they come into the body of the defendant, and they continued to have a dispute with the passengers after getting out of the bus, and C, which is a bus article, was punished by a dispute with the passengers, and C, which is a bus article, was asked to get out of the bus. Even if the defendant did not respond to the request of the defendant, even if the defendant was requested to get out of the bus, the defendant asked the defendant, who is an employee of the company, to get out of the bus, but the defendant also recommended the defendant to get out of the bus, but it was recognized that the police officer who called out to the bus in this case reported to 112 others' uneasy and allowed them to get out of the bus for the purpose of maintaining the order of the passengers. In full view of the above circumstances, the defendant's fear of the bus as well as the victim's fear of the bus.

In addition, in the light of the methods and the contents of the business interfered with the defendant's purpose, there is a reasonable ground to permit them by social norms.