2. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

3. The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio decision-making prosecutor.

For the first time, the prosecutor maintained the facts charged of the previous crime of public conflict against the defendant as the primary facts charged, and applied for the preliminary application of Article 283 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Act as the name of the conjunctive crime, and applied for the revision of indictment to add the same contents as the statement in the column of "the facts charged (the facts charged in the preliminary charge)" among the "judgments used again" under the facts charged, and this court permitted this.

As examined below, this Court has maintained the conclusion of the lower court that acquitted the Defendant on the primary facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that only the previous primary facts charged can no longer be maintained, inasmuch as the facts charged in the preliminary charge were subject to the judgment of the court, and this court found the defendant guilty of the conjunctive facts charged, as stated below, in the judgment of the court below that the previous primary facts charged was the subject of the judgment

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and is judged below.

B. On March 2016, the summary of the primary facts charged by the prosecutor’s assertion that the Defendant would not pay most of the monthly rent to the victim on the ground of organized violence, even if he/she gains a certain amount of income from his/her business, on the ground that he/she did not pay it to the victim.

At around 20:00 on August 2016, the Defendant was pushed down at the main point above the 20:00 above.