A. Although the Defendant’s act of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles constitutes legitimate exercise of right, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The sentence (500,000 won) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant did not violate social norms, such as reasonableness of the means or method, balance of legal interests, urgency, and supplement, and thus, was unlawful.

In light of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, such judgment of the court below on the grounds for the dismissal of illegality is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the defendant and defense counsel, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing in light of the fact that he/she directly rejected the entrance door glass of his/her office; (b) uses physical power on his/her personal basis even though resolving legal disputes through lawful procedures; and (c) reduced the amount of the initial fine by deeming that there are circumstances to consider the motive of the crime in the lower court; and (d) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the argument in the instant case, including the motive and method of the crime in this case; (b) the circumstances after the crime in question; and (c)

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.