A. There was a fact that the defendant committed an act of misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, such as partial saluting.

Even if this interfered with the work of the victims

It can not be seen that the defendant's act constitutes interference with business, even if it occurred in the course of protesting against unfair excessive treatment, it is a legitimate act that does not violate social rules.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it may be recognized that the Defendant interfered with the victims’ work as stated in the lower judgment, and even if so, there were such circumstances as alleged by the Defendant

Even if the defendant's act was not reasonable in the means and method, it is difficult to see that the defendant's act was an urgent and inevitable means.

Since it cannot be viewed as a justifiable act, it shall not be regarded as a justifiable act.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① A victim F served as a nurse in the E-Ma (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”). The main duties of the Victim F are performing the duties of receiving medical expenses, depending on the surgery or the process of performing outpatients.

② On the day of the instant case, the Defendant visited the hospital by obtaining medical treatment from the Defendant’s wife. On the ground that the instant hospital claimed excessive hospital fees, the Defendant resisted the Victim F, and in relation thereto, consulted the Victim A, the chief of the prime department of the instant hospital, and the office of prime department.

(3) Since then, when the defendant intends to go to go back from the office of the original department, the victim F has been receiving the defendant.

The defendant's defect and the defendant's "B Domine as Domine" to the victim F

The words, “,” etc. are written.