2. The freedom of judgment and demonstration and the freedom of expression should be guaranteed to the maximum extent as the fundamental element for the function of the democratic community, but such freedom and rights should be exercised in a lawful and peaceful manner within the scope of the Constitution and laws, and the harmony with other legal interests should be sufficiently taken into account.

However, the instant crime uses violence against D, who is an elected public official with democratic legitimacy, in order for the Defendant to carry out his own intent on a specific policy. This is not only an act that interferes with social integration through a reasonable debate and brings serious threat to representative democracy, but also an act that interferes with the appropriate exercise of public authority, and thus is an act that shakes the foundation of the rule of law, and thus requires strict punishment.

In addition, in light of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, even if considering the fact that the defendant acknowledges his mistake and the degree of the type used by the defendant is relatively heavy, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the deletion of “the CD,” in Part 6 of the judgment of the court below ex officio shall be corrected.