The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The police officer arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender on the ground that he assaulted the taxi article by misunderstanding the legal principles, and the police officer treated the defendant as a person who provided the cab article and treated the defendant as a person who provided the cab article as a conditionless perpetrator even though the defendant was willing to report the refusal to take the cab article. On the contrary, the defendant's act of taking a bath against it constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and sentenced the defendant guilty.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of legal doctrine, the fact that the victimized police officer was openly insulting by openly insulting the victimized police officer by taking the same bath as the facts charged while the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender and was carrying a police box. In full view of the content of the Defendant’s bath, the motive and circumstance of the bath, and the situation before and after the commission of the crime, there is considerable reason for the Defendant’s act to defend the current unfair infringement.

(self-defense) an act that is reasonable by social norms or that does not contravene social norms (a legitimate act).

Therefore, the court below is just in finding guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In full view of the circumstances that led to the Defendant to commit the instant crime, the details of the bath theory, circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, and other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3...