The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant was forced to drive a motor vehicle under drinking conditions at the request of a parking manager of a public parking lot where a substitute driver placed the motor vehicle in front of the entrance blocking of the public parking lot of the Defendant and cut off the motor vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant's act cannot be punished for falling under excessive self-defense or excessive necessity due to an act of necessity or a justifiable act, or because it falls under excessive self-defense or excessive necessity due to an interest or confusion at night.

B. The judgment of the court below on the defendant's sentence of unfair sentencing (the 300,000 won suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to constitute “an act with reasonable grounds” under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles refers to an act with reasonable grounds to avoid the current danger of one’s own or another’s legal interests. In order to constitute “an act with reasonable grounds,” the act of escape should be the only means to protect the legal interests faced with danger, the act of escape should be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the second victim should be the most minor damage. Third, the profit preserved by the act of escape should be more superior to the profit that is infringed upon. Fourth, the act of escape must be the appropriate means in light of social ethics or overall

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 2006). Moreover, in order to recognize a justifiable act, there is no means or method other than the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance of the interests of the third protected interests and infringed interests, fourth urgency, and fifth, there is no other means or method other than the act.