The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The F pastor who led the worship at the time of the instant case did not be appointed as the acting director in the instant case of provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties against E, who is a member of the instant church, and in light of the religious order and constitution, etc., the worship led by the F pastor does not constitute a worship with the protected value. 2) The Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act.

B. The court below's decision on unreasonable sentencing: a fine of one million won

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by providing a detailed statement on the Defendant’s assertion and its decision under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is examined closely by comparing the reasoning of the judgment of the court below with the records, and the worship does not necessarily lead by a pastor and can be led by anyone (the defendant also recognized it by the police (Article 47 of Investigation Records No. 2). As asserted by the defendant, the F pastor did not be appointed as an acting director, nor was he was entitled to guide the meeting in accordance with the religious order constitution, etc.

Even if such circumstance alone, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court and the lower court were examined.