A. Inasmuch as the victims of misapprehension of the legal doctrine were harassing a defendant through a long-term speech, behavior failure, or intimidation, it constitutes self-defense as stated in the facts charged at the corresponding level.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In order for a certain act to be recognized as self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act with respect to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the act is designed to defend the current infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest, and there must be reasonableness. Therefore, whether the act of defense is socially reasonable should be determined by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the kind and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, etc.

(2) In the case of this case, the defendant's act of repeatedly sending letters causing humiliations or uneasiness to the victims to the victims is difficult to view that the defendant's act of repeatedly sending letters to the victims to the victims is against the victim's unfair infringement as stated in the judgment of the court below, and it is not reasonable in the means and method. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, a defendant has no same criminal record and has no criminal record of suspended execution or more, etc. are considered extenuating circumstances.

However, there is no agreement with the victims, and the court below has determined the punishment by considering the conditions that are already favorable to the defendants, and there is no special change in the circumstances that may be newly considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the court below, and the age, character, character and environment of the defendants.