The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of the legal principles, K used only part of the fifth floor building of this case E (hereinafter “the instant building”) but it is unlawful that the court issued a search and seizure warrant to the extent that the entire building was located at the location. This is also unlawful for the police to execute the search and seizure warrant against the place other than the space K used among the second floor of the instant building based on the above search and seizure warrant.

Therefore, the Defendant’s act to oppose the above illegal execution of duties constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act. Even if the execution of a warrant by the police is lawful, the attorney-at-law who participated at the scene was aware of the illegal performance of duties, and led to such act by mistake due to an unlawful performance of duties. Thus, the illegality is dismissed as it constitutes an error as to the premise of the ground for the rejection of illegality.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court, based on its stated reasoning recognized by the evidence adopted by the lower court, may search not only the office space attached with the name of the “K” but also the office space of the trade union, taking into account the structure of each part of the instant case’s office and the form of division of office space, etc. as police officers who were to execute the search and seizure warrant issued for the entire building of this case.

As such, the police officer's search and seizure of this case constitutes legitimate execution of duties, and the defendant's act cannot be viewed as legitimate act that does not violate social norms.