A. Recognizing that the Defendant alleged misapprehension of the legal principles did an act identical to that stated in the facts charged in the instant case, but the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, did the above act in order to oppose the improper act of the court staff, constitutes a justifiable act.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the ground of unreasonable sentencing (fine of 600,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of legal principles also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant's above assertion on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the reasonable means, method and balance of legal interests because it is for the maintenance of order in the court building and for the safety of the civil petitioners, even though the employees of the Investigation Team of Goyang Branch Branch of the Jungyang Branch of the District Court requested the defendant to be exempted from the mother and child or supervised the defendant in the search process against the defendant, and it does not constitute an illegal and unfair measure that infringes on the defendant's rights, even if the defendant thought that such measures are unfair and led to the crime of this case in order to resist the crime of this case, even if the defendant thought that such measures are unfair, it is hard to recognize the defendant's right to escape from disturbance, such as breathing or breathing, and singing the present door by the method, method, and balance of legal interests.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is hard to see that there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion on this is without merit.

B. The first instance trial on the assertion of unfair sentencing is concerned.