The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. In the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant was only a blue victim, her blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue brue b

If the defendant is in the same situation as the defendant, any person would have acted as the defendant.

The above argument by the defendant is to the purport that the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act and thus the illegality is excluded.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (the amount of KRW 600,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. To recognize a legitimate act of determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the following must 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 benefit of protection and infringement; (d) urgency; and (e) supplementary nature that there is no means or method other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003; 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the appellate court, the instant act by the Defendant cannot be deemed as a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act because it does not meet the requirements such as legitimacy of the purpose; (d) reasonableness of means; (e) balance between the benefit of protection and infringement; (e) urgency; and (e) supplementary nature.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legitimate act is without merit.

① The Defendant, as a door-to-door engineer, stopped a door-to-door vehicle at the time and place indicated in the facts of the crime as indicated in the judgment below, and the bus driven by the victim was unable to enter the bus stop located front of the Defendant, and became the starting point of this case.

② Since the Defendant’s door-to-door vehicle stops at the above place, passengers who were trying to board the bus driven by the victim and passengers who had already been on board the bus was resisted by the Defendant.