2. Determination:

A. According to the witness D’s legal statement, etc., the fact that the Defendant’s act at the time interfered with one another’s business is recognized.

B. Accordingly, the defense counsel asserts that the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms.

According to the court statement, etc. of locks, the witness F, and G, while the Defendant’s daily driving parked in the parking lot in order to leave the restaurant of the above building, and the parking lot entrance was not available to the victim’s vehicle, it is acknowledged that the vehicle was known that the victim was a two-point vehicle operated by the victim and demanded the victim to cut off the vehicle. However, the victim did not cut off part of the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle outside the parking lot cannot be parked, and that the victim was drinking out of the parking lot without cutting off the vehicle, and that the Defendant had the police contact the victim, but the victim did not cut off the vehicle at the police’s request.

Then, the defendant saw a small amount of sound to find the two uniforms.

Even if the defendant had already been unable to get off the vehicle for a considerable time, the owner of a vehicle which is difficult to get out of the entrance of the vehicle was known, and the victim was deprived of his/her part of the vehicle even though he/she requested to move, and from the victim's perspective, he/she is a restaurant that the defendant instructed the defendant to park in the above parking lot.