The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

A. It was true that the Defendant, who was the police officer, sent by the Defendant, expressed a misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, made the victim E, but this constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social norms and thus, is dismissed.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 20 of the Criminal Act provides that the act of Article 20 of the Criminal Act that does not violate social rules does not punish the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles is stipulated as the basis for determining the most fundamental illegality.

Therefore, even if the act appears to fall under the requirement for constituting a crime in light of the language and text of the provision of the Act, the illegality cannot be punished only when it is extremely deemed to be within the scope of historical social order as one of the normal living forms. In order to recognize such a justifiable act, the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected interest and the infringed interest and the protected interest, urgency, and other means or method except the act should be satisfied (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003, etc.). In light of the records of this case, it is difficult to recognize the motive or purpose of the act of the defendant as justifiable, and considering not only the relation between the defendant and the victim, the contents and circumstances of the defendant's speech and the situation before and after the speech, etc., the act of the defendant is a considerable act in the means and method.

(1) If it is deemed that it is urgent or inevitable, it shall not be deemed that it is.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit because the insult of the judgment of the court below is not a legitimate act.

B. The defendant is aged 75 years and health.