A. The Defendant, on the day of the instant case, was notified of the disturbance due to the act committed at the above amusement station and paid the penalty. As such, the Defendant was not subject to a new punishment for the said act pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

Therefore, the prosecution of this case should be acquitted.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act as to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the penalty system under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides an opportunity to pay a certain amount of penalty in accordance with the notification given by the chief of the police station prior to the criminal procedure, etc., prior to the criminal procedure, and provides special cases for punishment in order to keep the case simple, speedy and appropriate, there is difference between the trial procedure and the institutional purport and legal nature of the court.

In addition, the scope recognized as effective as a final and conclusive judgment following the payment of penalty shall be limited to the relevant offense itself and the offenses recognized as identical to the offense described in the reason for notification of penalty.

Therefore, an act done at the same time and place as the act of offense

Even if a criminal act committed beyond the identity of the same offense does not affect the validity of the absence of a private company equivalent to the final judgment according to the payment of the penalty (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12249, Apr. 28, 2011). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, has some overlap in that the act of creating apprehension, which is an offense against which the Defendant was subject to a disposition of a penalty notice, and a special assault, which is the facts charged of this case, is in close vicinity to the date and place of the offense. However, the above offense and the facts charged of this case, are different from the content of the offense, the means and form of the act, and the legal interests and interests arising from each act, and are also distinguishable.