As to the crime of interference with business of March 2, 2014, the Defendant is punished by a fine of one million won and the remainder.

A. Error 1) The Defendant: (a) committed an assault against the victim D on March 25, 2014 on the instant restaurant operated by the victim; (b) on March 25, 2014, the Defendant avoided the disturbance; (c) however, there was no fact that the Defendant committed an assault against the victim F; (d) the Defendant committed an assault against the victim F by causing the victim under the influence of alcohol; (c) the victim was boomed and sold; and (d) there was no fact that the victim was boomed against the victim; and (d) there was no fact that the victim was harming him.

3) On March 2, 2014, the Defendant found the instant restaurant on March 2, 2014, but did not go to the instant restaurant, but did not go to the victim, and did not go to the disturbance.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution on February 14, 2014 by the Seoul Northern District Court on March 20, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 20, 2014. Accordingly, the crime of interference with business committed on March 2, 2014 as of March 2, 2014 as of March 2, 2014 as of the judgment of the court below is in concurrently with the crime of assault for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the crime of interference with business committed on March 2, 2014 as

However, the lower court, without such consideration, found all of the crimes in the judgment of the lower court as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced to a single punishment, so the lower judgment cannot be maintained any more.

However, even if the judgment of the court below has reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this argument is examined.

B. The first instance court, which is adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, is based on the spirit of the substantial direct trial principle.