A. The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal doctrine constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social norms, and thus, does not constitute illegality.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court did not err in its illegality on the ground that the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, by taking account of the circumstances acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

The decision was determined.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles is without merit.

B. According to the argument and record of the instant case’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering the various grounds for sentencing alleged by the Defendant, and there are no special circumstances to ex post facto change the sentencing. Therefore, the Defendant’s argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.