Even if the defendant's act satisfies the elements of the crime of assault, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act for the following reasons.

In other words, the Defendant did not commit the act identical to the crime in the judgment of the court below in order to prevent the access of D pastors and their support members (hereinafter “D pastors”) to the Crown for the purpose of keeping them from having access to the Crown, but committed the above act in order to prevent the seizure of D pastors by unlawful intrusion into the Crown which is jointly occupied by the members of D pastors including the Defendant (hereinafter “Dissenting members”) by mobilization of service personnel without going through legitimate procedures.

Judgment

The evidence duly examined by the court below reveals the following facts.

In light of these facts, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant had the criminal intent of assault.

In addition, as the opposing members conflict two parts within the same church for a considerable time, they are prevented from entering the church building on the side of D pastors in violation of the court's provisional disposition order, and they enter the church building illegally without going through lawful procedures, even if the assault, such as the facts constituting the crime of the defendant's judgment, which was committed in the judgment of the court below, occurred during the illegal intrusion on the side of D pastors, it shall not be deemed as a passive attack against the victims, but it shall not be deemed as a self-defense or a legitimate act.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

In the Cridge, there was a dispute between D pastors and opposing members.

D Bags are leased one floor above the P building from May 2017 to Cridges, which is located adjacent to Cridges.