The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) as to the Defendant’s act is dismissed as a justifiable act in light of the freedom of assembly stipulated in the Constitution, since the Defendant expressed his intent in a peaceful way.

2. The "act that does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is justified as an act that does not violate social norms and thus, the illegality should be determined individually by considering the specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method; (iii) balance between the protected interests and infringed interests; (iv) balance between the protected interests and the infringement interests; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 200). According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the act of the defendant is beyond the scope of the National Assembly's freedom of assembly and demonstration, as well as the act of the National Assembly's free assembly and demonstration within 10 meters from the boundary of the National Assembly.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.