Part concerning the first crime and acquittal of the judgment shall be reversed respectively.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

A. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles, even though the case where the defendant was notified of all of the facts under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and the case where the obstruction of business was not identical to the case where the basic facts were not identical.

B. As to the punishment of the court below (the defendant and the prosecutor), the defendant asserts that the punishment of the court below (the imprisonment of two months for the crime No. 1 in its holding, the imprisonment of six months for the crime No. 2 and the crime No. 3 in its holding) is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the penalty system under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides an opportunity to pay a certain amount of penalty in accordance with a disposition given by the chief of a police station prior to the criminal procedure, etc., prior to the criminal procedure, and provides special cases concerning punishment for the purpose of simple, speedy and appropriate handling of the case without prosecution, there are differences between the court’s trial procedure, institutional purport and legal nature.

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 in the case of criminal acts committed beyond the identity of the offense, the validity of the absence of one-time objection equivalent to the final and conclusive judgment shall not extend to the criminal act committed beyond the identity of the offense (see Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do612, Sept. 13, 2012; 2009Do12249, Apr. 28, 201, etc.).

According to the records, around January 10, 2017, around 23:14, 2017, the defendant filed a report with 112 on the ground that the victim N did not pay the drinking value, and accordingly, the defendant filed a report on January 14, 2017.