The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that although the defendant stated that he would be able to walk in the apartment corridor, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though he did not speak to the extent that he would be slick in neighbors.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case

On September 25, 2007, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) on September 15, 2007, at around 15:15, the Defendant: (b) stated that, in the front corridor No. 1x 2xxx of the apartment located in Busan Northern-gu, B, who was the visitors to the above apartment No. 3xxxxxxx, dialogues with 3xxxxxxxxxxxm of the apartment corridor, and slurgedly, on the ground that they are slurged and slured, the Defendant

3. Determination

Article 1 subparag. 26 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides that "a person who causes neighbors to satisfy by excessively increasing sound, such as the radio, television, electric shock, bell, loudspeaker motive, etc. of musical instruments, or by singing loudly, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 100,000 won, by penal detention, or by a minor fine. In the meantime, Article 4 of the same Act provides that "in the application of this Act, a person shall pay careful attention so as not to infringe the rights of the people, and shall not be applied without permission for any other purpose beyond its original purpose, in consideration of the purport of the provision on prohibition of abuse under Article 4 of the same Act and the balance between the acts of other types of disturbance stipulated in subparagraph 26 of Article 1 of the same Act, a person who satfys neighbors by sating or singing in a large amount, refers to a case where a person merely satfy by a large sound, which causes considerable disturbance, such as causing harm to the daily life of neighbors.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and this court, the defendant at around 15:15 on September 25, 2007, the defendant stated that the above apartment Nos. 1x 2xxx of the above apartment house 1xx 2xx, "defences" to the people who passed on the front corridor of the above apartment house No. 1x 2xx, and that the defendant was able to take advantage of who was on the third floor B, and entered the defendant's house with sound "b" toward B, "I can find the fact that B was dispatched to the police by reporting it to 112 in order to take the measures against the defendant's b's abusive.

According to the above facts, the Defendant’s speech that he would be able to blickly in his front of his house, and that he would be able to blickly with his desire, but the above act was likely to harm the peace of neighbors’ daily life. It is difficult to see that the Defendant’s act was likely to interfere with the Defendant’s behavior except for the Defendant and the actual ditch B, or there was no other residents who raised an objection. B did not report that the Defendant was flicking neighbors by leaving the Defendant’s large voice, apart from what constitutes another crime under the Criminal Act, it is difficult to see that the Defendant’s act of blickly speaking in front of his house constitutes an act that could not be permitted beyond the limit of freedom of expression. In light of the above facts, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s act constitutes a case where the Defendant’s sound as defined in Article 1 subparag. 26 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act is no other evidence.

Therefore, since the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and the judgment of conviction against the defendant in violation of the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is justified.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the following decision is

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as stated in the above 2, and on the grounds as seen earlier, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325

Judges Park Jae-in

Judges Nam-jin