The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that the Defendant, while soliciting the purchase of the instant land to the victim, demanded that the purchase price be set at KRW 35 to 4 million per 3.3 square meters, by misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or attempted attempt to go against the rules of law.

However, the actual market price of the above land is 300,000 square meters before and after 300,000 square meters per 3.3 square meter, and the price requested by the defendant is permissible for land transaction under the social norms

In addition, in this regard, the defendant and the victim have different opinions on the land price, and the victim may refuse it. Thus, the defendant's demand as above is permissible in terms of social norms in the course of real estate trade.

B) The above price is reasonable in light of social rules, since the Defendant suffered disadvantages due to pollutants, such as excreta discharged from the livestock shed of the victim, and the Defendant demanded the victim, who is the provider of the cause, to pay reasonable compensation, and even if higher than the market price, there was sufficient room for price negotiations between both parties.

2) As to the act of assault, the Defendant did not commit assault, even though he did not commit an act of assaulting the victim, who tried to capture a camera by using a camera in order to collect evidentiary materials in order to file a civil petition related to environmental issues on the part of the victim’s livestock shed near the livestock shed at the time of this case.

Furthermore, the defendant is a person with a disability of the third degree who is unable to use the arm's length.

In addition, the defendant was not a normal body, but only committed a legitimate act in order not to take the Kameras as above.

3) Therefore, the lower court, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by exceeding the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below erred in sentencing.