The appeal is dismissed.

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, at around 14:05 on December 1, 2013, in the Cho-dong bus parking lot in Maeek-dong, Manee-dong, Manee-dong, Manee-dong, and did not go to a death, caused the Defendant to knee-knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-k

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “act that does not contravene the social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle refers to an act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether a certain act constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, and thus, is dismissed as a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, must be determined on an individual basis based on a concrete and reasonable basis,

To recognize such a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; reasonableness of the means or method; third, protection interest and balance of infringement interest and legal interests; fourth urgency; fifth, supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4688 Decided September 30, 2005, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court below duly adopted and investigated by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4688, Sept. 30, 2005). i.e., ① A person who was seated on the defendant side of the defendant in Samung-ro bus stated that the defendant committed an assault by unilaterally taking the victim’s desire (the fourth page of the evidence record). ② The victim stated in the police that “When the defendant was flabing sat and pushed the chest, the defendant was satched, but he was flabed (Evidence No. 15).