A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts as to the judgment of the court of first instance or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the judgment of the court of first instance, and unreasonable sentencing) 1) Defendant’s request to present an identification card to J, K, etc. is a justifiable act, and thus cannot be deemed unlawful. 2) Defendant’s demand to leave L does not constitute “def

3) The Defendant’s act of not returning a victim’s cell phone does not constitute “defluence,” and even if such act constitutes “defluence,” it cannot be deemed that the victim’s operation of “I” was obstructed, and the Defendant’s act is a justifiable act, and thus, cannot be deemed unlawful. 4) Punishment of a fine (700,000 won) sentenced by the lower court by the first instance court is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the judgment of the court below of the second instance), it is recognized that the defendant abused D.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Regarding whether the Defendant’s demand for presentation of identification card to J, K, etc. is a justifiable act, “act that does not violate social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the said act. Whether a certain act is an act that does not contravene social norms and is thus unreasonable should be determined on an individual basis, based on specific circumstances, whether the illegality is eliminated. To constitute such a justifiable act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method; (iii) balance between the benefit and the benefit of infringement; (iv) balance between the benefit of protection and infringement; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do2758, May 30, 2017).