Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. As to the Defendant (guilty part)’s assault on December 3, 2018, the lower court found the Defendant guilty, although the Defendant did not assault the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,00) is too unreasonable.

B. On June 20, 2016, the prosecutor 1), misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (non-guilty part) and interference with one’s own business on August 18, 2018, and interference with one’s own business on the same day, according to the evidence, the Defendant committed an act identical to that stated in the above part of the facts charged at the same time.

may be appointed by a person.

Nevertheless, since the court below did not recognize this and rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and legal principles.

2) The lower court’s sentencing (guilty guilty part) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The prosecutor ex officio held that the lower court acquitted the Defendant at the trial on June 20, 2016 among the facts charged in the instant case, applied for the amendment to Bill of Indictment with the effect that the date of the crime of assault and obstruction of business operation on June 20, 2016 was changed to “Policeman in the middle of August 18, 2018,” and that the date of the crime of obstruction of business operation on August 18, 2018 was changed to “Policeman in the middle of August 2018.” As such, the portion of the lower judgment’s judgment that was acquitted cannot be maintained any longer.

In addition, as examined below, all of the revised charges are found guilty, so the guilty part of the judgment of the court below that should be sentenced as one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act should also be reversed.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to a trial by the party.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, i.e., the victim on January 2018.