The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the charge of violation of the Road Traffic Act among the charges of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant: (a) was locked on the Defendant’s vehicle; (b) was merely driving a vehicle on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle by ordering the police officer to cut off his vehicle; and (c) thus, the Defendant’s act of driving the vehicle constitutes a justifiable act; (d) however, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged in this case or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

(B) The overall purport of the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not clearly assert a justifiable act may be deemed to have made a justifiable act in accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

The defendant of mental disorder was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties of this case, and was in the state of mental disorder

C. The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspension of execution in six months of imprisonment, fine of two hundred and twenty million won, community service work, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, “act which does not contravene the social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, and thus, it should be judged individually and reasonably based on specific circumstances, under the following circumstances: (i) justification 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) balance between the benefit of protection and the benefit of infringement; and (v) supplementaryness that there is no other means or method other than the act.

Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4151 Decided April 27, 2006