The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: F, who is the believers of the Newcheon church, was forced to undergo a religious education from the parents who are the believers of the D church as indicated in the judgment, and was detained in the D church, and thus, the defendant's act entering the D church to escape from F at the F's request constitutes an urgent escape or a justifiable act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the judgment.

B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant’s act of the Defendant’s judgment cannot be deemed an emergency escape or a justifiable act on the ground that: (b) the Defendant, who was the believers of the new branch church, was aware that he could not enter the D church’s entrance to the D church by reporting on the bulletin board “Prohibition of Access to the New branch,” which was attached to the D church entrance; and (c) even if the Defendant received a request for assistance from F, who was the believers of the new branch church, who was receiving education for opening the new branch within the D church, reported confinement to the police, and accordingly, entered the police into the D church in order to

(3) It is difficult to expect a police officer who enters a D church to have a trust in the police officer because he/she takes the position of F parents or the believers of other D church only or by any other means.

If there is no reason to see that the defendant enters the D church without hearing the explanation from the police who entered the D church, there is the urgency or supplement of the party's act and the reasonableness of the escape act.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's mistake and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, the objective of the instant crime.