Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s grounds for appeal against the first judgment of the lower court are against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant agreed with D only smoothly; and (c) the Defendant attempted to realize the public interest such as the prevention of public toilets in Guro-gu, thereby committing the instant non-compliance with the eviction and obstruction of performance of official duties; (d) the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year sentenced by the first instance judgment; and (e) the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for two years

B. Ground of appeal 1 against the judgment of the second instance) In light of the fact that the Defendant did not assault theO on December 29, 2014, the Defendant did not want to punish the Defendant. 2) In light of the fact that the victim of unfair sentencing L,O, P does not want to punish the Defendant, and the Defendant is against the Defendant, the punishment of imprisonment with labor for one year sentenced by the judgment of the second instance is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the police of misunderstanding facts-finding and the statement at the original court, the defendant's statement at the police of misunderstanding facts-finding, around December 29, 2014, in light of the fact that around 05:05 on December 29, 2014, the defendant went beyond her face from "N" located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City to drinking, and the defendant consented to walk the O's bridge. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit. 2) The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is a limited term of at least one year (Habitual assault). The defendant appealed to a suspended sentence of one year with imprisonment with prison labor at the first instance court of this case, and is still under appellate court, and without being aware of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of the second instance judgment of this case without being aware of the fact that the defendant was sentenced to punishment for damage to public documents; the defendant's power reaches 20 times of the same kind of crime; the defendant's age, character and behavior, various circumstances, and circumstances of this case.