A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, from the victim and the person living together with the victim, experienced a severe pain, and she was seated before the victim's house. Since the Defendant reported to 112 by suffering such injury, the Defendant continued to sit before the victim's house to prevent the perpetrator from getting out of the scene until the police called out.

The defendant's act is not illegal because it does not go against social rules.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, it is acknowledged that the defendant argued that "the victim has stolen the defendant's person's body punishment," and that "the victim has stolen the defendant's body punishment," and that the victim's apartment was found in several times, despite the victim's demand for return from the victim, the defendant was expected to sit in the front of the apartment door or was in the emergency stairs, and that the victim has failed to take a bath and refused to leave, and that the victim interfered with the victim's entry into the apartment, and that such act of the defendant does not violate the social rules because the reasonableness of the method and urgency are not recognized.

The judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court’s sentence may be modified in the first instance court except for the circumstances indicated by the lower court.