A. In light of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as seen below, the facts charged in this case constitute a justifiable act which is acceptable under the social norms, and thus, it is not unlawful.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case has erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

① At the time of the instant case, E is a non-permanent pastor with no authority to take charge of worship.

② A pastor, who was in charge of temporary worship in a C church, had silented to control temporary worships on the premise that he/she was a normal pastor of the C church. On September 2012, 2012, he/she withdrawn his/her expression of intent to request ice from the office according to the purport of the members of the C church.

(3) The withdrawal of the application for ice by the members of the church is because they led the members of the church with the intention of F, such as not prohibiting the visitors from entering the C church of F.

(4) On the other hand, E has moved to a church for an accident that makes it impossible to recover the C church by filing a complaint or accusation of a number of parcels of money.

⑤ E, in which the request for ice withdrawal was withdrawn, left the C church, and continued to deliver a tugboat without leaving the church.

6) Since the Defendant does not leave the C church, the Defendant only left the church and did not yield the jobs so that he does not leave the church.

7. At the time, the defendant was the only head of the C church and was in charge of the worship.

8) Therefore, the right to manage worships E has no value to protect.

B. The Defendant alleged that it does not interfere with the worship is merely a refusal of another person’s request, which the majority of the members of the church participated in the worship, depending on the defendant’s worship, who was entitled to preside over the delivery of the worship in the case of a pastor as an interest source of a church as the head of a church. The facts charged in the instant case do not constitute a crime of interference with the worship.

The argument is asserted.

The above assertion by the defendant is legitimate since it was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal.