The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 70,000 won.

Defendant

B.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. As to Defendant A 1’s obstruction of worship, Defendant A was a ice flusor of a mixed standard, and there was no purpose to obstruct the towing. The Defendant’s act was an act of not likely to obstruct the towing, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B) As to the insult, Defendant A’s own wind was attempted at the time of each person’s deception, and there is no performance. The lower court determined that the elements of the offense of insult are satisfied. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine (e.g., obstruction of distribution and insult), even if Defendant A’s act constitutes a obstruction of distribution and insult, such act was conducted at the level of a claim against the victim’s unfair act, and thus, the illegality should be avoided. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case.

3) 양형부당 피고인 A에 대한 원심의 형(벌금 70만 원)이 너무 무거워서 부당하다. 나. 피고인 B 1) 사실오인(예배방해 및 모욕의 점에 관하여) 피고인 B이 손으로 목을 치는 시늉을 한 것은 피해자가 피고인 B 등을 향하여 수시로 파직출교, 제명당했다는 의미로 손으로 목을 치는 행위를 했기 때문에 이를 하지 말라는 의미로 한 것으로, 예배를 방해하거나 모욕할 의도는 없었다.

In addition, since Defendant B was seated after the front of the distribution, and there was no other confidence, there was no risk of interference with worship, and the performance of the offense of insult is not recognized.

Nevertheless, since the court below judged that Defendant B interfered with the towing and insulting the victim, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts.

2) The misapprehension of the legal principle (e.g., interference with and insult of worship)’s act by Defendant B constitutes obstruction of worship and insult.