The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant stated that he would go to the victim interfering with his business by citing the sales store of adult products operated by himself, but the victim would not hear the horses, and it is only a brush of the victim’s head with the victim’s head twice inevitably in order to produce the victim.

Therefore, although the above act of the defendant constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on such act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. "Act which does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act as to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether a certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not violate social rules, and thus, the illegality should be avoided, based on specific circumstances, and should be determined individually. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) legitimacy of the means or method of the act; (c) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (d) balance between the benefits of protection and the benefits of infringement; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementaryness

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3000 delivered on September 26, 2003). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the victim's head was tightly close up twice with the hand floor when the defendant took a bath to the victim who was suffering from the sales store of adult products operated by him/her, and even if the victim interfered with the defendant's business, the defendant should exercise physical power against the victim.