A. The Defendant did not reach the degree of nearby disturbance in light of the fact that the Defendant had sound at the time of the mistake of facts, or in light of the surrounding circumstances, the size and duration of the sound, etc.

At the time, police officers themselves called to the scene abuse of authority, and police officers E made improper physical contact to the defendant, and thus, the defendant got sound. Therefore, police officers D's disposition of penalty disposition is abuse of authority and excessive control is the abuse of authority.

Police Officers D had made a false statement from the court of the original trial to the false statement.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this point and sentenced him guilty is erroneous and has affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 50,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts is 1) An act of disturbing neighbors as provided by Article 3(1)21 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act refers to a case where neighbors are frightened by talking or singing, etc. In order to fall under the above, the act of disturbing neighbors must cause considerable disturbance, such as merely frightening in large volume beyond the degree of noise and impeding the peace of neighbors’ daily lives (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8793, Nov. 27, 2008). Meanwhile, in light of the above legal principles, a police officer may prevent, suppress, and investigate acts constituting a minor crime pursuant to the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and may restrain a police officer from doing so if necessary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do19417, Dec. 13, 2018).