The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A did not assault Defendant A, even if there was an assault, this constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms, and as to the obstruction of general traffic, Defendant A merely fell into a wheel chairs operated without permission by the police, and Defendant B also made a hump to the above police act, and this constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules, even if it was committed at the end of the Office of Education, even if it is not against the social rules, the lower court convicted all of the charges of this case, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of 2 million won, Defendant B: a fine of 500,000 won) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) "act which does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act means an act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is justified as an act which does not violate social rules, should be determined individually by considering the following specific circumstances: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the benefit and the benefit of infringement; (iv) supplementary nature of the benefit of protection and infringement; and (v) supplementary nature of no other means or method than the act should be met.

Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300 Delivered on September 26, 2003