The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant’s act constitutes the defense of a political party by taking measures to defend himself/herself or the general nature of the Defendant from the interference with the worship of D church or the unlawful attack by the victim and to keep the order of the church.

The defendant's attempt to maintain the peace of worship that D church members want to understand is the necessary minimum measure that can be accepted in light of social norms. Thus, it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social norms.

Therefore, there is no illegality in the defendant's act.

2. The Defendant also asserted the above in the lower court.

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court cannot deem that the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

The decision was determined.

If the court below examines evidence duly adopted and examined, it is just that the above judgment of the court below is just.

Even after closely examining the evidence submitted by the defendant at the trial of the party, it cannot be said that the illegality of the defendant's assault as a legitimate defense or a legitimate act is excluded.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.