In light of the purport of Article 4 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and the balance with other types of disturbing acts as stipulated in Article 1 subparagraph 26 of the same Act, the court below interpreted that the above act "domination of neighbors is likely to cause a disturbance to a considerable extent, such as that it merely exceeds the degree of large noise, and it interferes with the peace in neighboring daily life." Based on the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and comprehensively taking into account these facts, the defendant's expression that he would use it in his front of his house and her house, and that it is difficult to see that the above act was likely to harm neighbor's daily life, as long as it is difficult to see that it is difficult to see that the defendant's act constitutes a noise crime that is not a legitimate one of the following facts, and that it is difficult to see that the above act constitutes a noise crime that is not a large one of the daily life of neighbors, and that it is difficult to see that the defendant's expression of opinion and punishment, other than the facts charged by the defendant, as the defendant's expression of a big.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)