A. 1) The Defendant refused a victim’s demand for compensation of satisfy at the coffee specialty of the instant case, but did not interfere with business that prevents customers from leaving or entering the instant coffee store by avoiding disturbance.

2) As to the part of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant resisted the police officer to the police officer, resulting in the Defendant’s interference with the victim’s business.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine (the part concerning the offense of insult) and deemed that the Defendant expressed a desire in the process of resisting the illegal arrest of the Defendant in the act of committing an act of committing an offense, even though there was no need to arrest the Defendant in the act of committing an offense at the time of the instant case, and thus,

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, especially the witness E’s legal statement, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant merely refused the demand for reimbursement of satisfy, but obstructed the victim’s business by avoiding disturbance as stated in its reasoning.

B. If a police officer who intends to confirm the nature of the case at a coffee specialty where a customer is made continues to resist the police officer with a large voice and talks with him/her, he/she could sufficiently recognize the circumstances that interference with the business of coffee specialty. Thus, the defendant's intent to interfere with the business is also recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's and defense counsel's mistake is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementaryness that there is no other means or method than the act (Supreme Court Decision 26 September 26, 2003).