A. Regarding the background leading up to the occurrence of the cost of parking fees, which was the starting point of the instant case, the Defendant did not hear the statement that the Defendant would pay KRW 1,100,00 for one-hour parking fees by hearing the statement from E at the settlement office during the process of entering and visiting the waterway parking lot. 2) The Defendant used the expression “this new statement” in the process of responding to the allegation that one-hour parking fees are unfair and the victim, who was dispatched after receiving a report, should be processed in a biased and inappropriate manner. In light of the expression itself, it does not constitute a warning that lowers the social evaluation of the victim, and as the victim dispatched after receiving a report, did not treat the civil petition filed by the Defendant on the job site fairly and appropriately. Accordingly, the Defendant’s use of such expression against the police officer in the course of performing his/her duties constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against social rules.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination of erroneous determination as to the allegation of parking fee notice were duly adopted and examined. ① The instant parking lot is operated in a way that the driver of the vehicle, who has a parking machine installed in the front and rear door, issued a parking ticket with the parking lot and presented a parking ticket to the settlement office through the parking lot and then opened a stop period when paying the parking fee calculated according to the parking time. In addition, E in charge of settlement within the settlement office, like other parking lot users, is placed in the settlement period after obtaining parking tickets from the Defendant.