A. In fact, the Defendant did not interfere with the business of the victim by avoiding the abusive or disturbance, and did not insult the victim by taking the victim’s abusive language.

B. Legal doctrine misunderstandings the defendant's act obstructing the victim's service.

This is a legitimate act that does not violate social rules.

(c)

Sentencing is unfair because it is too unreasonable that the sentence of the lower court (700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact, the defendant interferes with the victim's business as shown in paragraph 1 of the judgment below, and can sufficiently be recognized the fact of insulting the victim by taking the bath as described in paragraph 2 of the judgment below. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of fact is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s act of determining the misapprehension of the legal doctrine does not seem to be reasonable, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act satisfies the requirement of justifiable act, such as urgency or supplement that there is no other means or method. Therefore, it cannot be deemed as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

We cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

(c)

In full view of the fact that the defendant's judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing is old, the health condition is not good, and that there is no agreement with the defendant, that there is no record of punishment several times of the same crime, and that there are other various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.