A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) ] The above Defendant, as a siren, has the right to recover the instant car from the victim. Thus, there was no intention to obtain unlawful permission. The Defendant’s act such as the facts charged, constitutes excessive self-help or legitimate act, and thus, is dismissed from illegality.

(2) The sentence of imprisonment (one year and six months) to the above defendant by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment of Defendant B against the above defendant (hereinafter referred to as a fine of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Even if the defendant had a claim against the victim by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, if he/she had the other party make it a means of intimidation exceeding the degree that it is difficult to be accepted by social norms by undermining the exercise of his/her right, and thereby, he/she would be a crime of attack.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305 delivered on February 25, 2000). According to the evidence duly adopted by the court below, Defendant A demanded that Defendant A set up the instant vehicle by threatening the victim with a fluence with a large number of daily behaviors, and it can be recognized that Defendant A had attempted to receive the instant vehicle by threatening the victim to drive away from her house and her bath with the victim's house, and by threatening the victim to the extent that it is difficult to be acceptable under the social norms, such as where the victim was able to drive away from her house by her house and her desire to drive her house, and by threatening the victim to the extent that it is difficult to be acceptable under the social norms, such as where she was accompanied by her knob

It can not be seen that illegality is excluded as acts that do not violate social rules.

Therefore, the above defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. New circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing in the judgment of the court of unfair sentencing are not visible, and Defendant A would have committed a violation of the rules in the detention house.