The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misunderstanding the facts, did not cause a disturbance for one hour as stated in the facts charged, such as taking a bath or entering a clinic without permission, etc.

B. The Defendant’s act is a justifiable act that does not go against the rules of society, such as the failure to make a legitimate request for a refund by misunderstanding of the legal doctrine is merely a claim against G responding to the intention of speech.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (the amount of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of fact, especially the F, G investigation agencies, and the statements at the court of original instance, the defendant's disturbance for about one hour is sufficiently recognized to interfere with the operation of the hospital by force, as stated in the facts charged.

B. The phrase “act which does not contravene the social norms” prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles refers to an act which is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as the 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, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act, it constitutes a justifiable act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8530, Feb. 25, 2005). In light of the Defendant’s criminal act and the contents of the criminal act revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, even if considering the circumstances leading to the Defendant’s assertion, it satisfies the requirements of reasonableness of the means or method, balance of legal interests, urgency, and supplementary nature as a justifiable act as seen earlier.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the act as stated in the facts charged by the defendant is a justifiable act.

(c)

The argument of sentencing is unfair.