Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The defendant did not pay the above fine.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor by the Seoul Eastern District Court on June 2, 2016, and on September 3, 2016, the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive on September 3, 2016, after the judgment of the court below was rendered. As such, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties and the instant injury are concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with the reasoning of the judgment below on the ground that there is a ground for reversal ex officio.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of criminal facts and evidence recognized by this court is the criminal facts and the summary of the evidence. The judgment of the court below became final and conclusive on September 3, 2016 after having been sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of official duty in the Seoul Eastern District Court on June 2, 2016.

“A previous conviction in the judgment of the court below” is added to “1. The summary of the evidence is as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for the search of the Konet case and the addition of the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2015 order 3180 [Attachment] to the last part of the evidence. As such, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

1. Subsequent to Article 37 of the Criminal Act in the course of concurrent crimes: Provided, That Article 39 (1) (which is between a person and a person who interferes with the execution of public duties for which judgment becomes final and conclusive);

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with respect to the detention of the workhouses is that the crime of this case constitutes a crime of interference with the execution of official duties for which the judgment became final and conclusive and a crime of concurrence under the latter part of Article 37 is favorable to the defendant.