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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Since the Defendant, who has not claimed mental and physical weakness, committed the instant crime while lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions, the punishment should be mitigated in accordance with Article 10 of the Criminal Act.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime by drinking alcohol, the Defendant is in depthing his mistake, and the Defendant is a single concurrent offender after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, etc., the punishment (three million won in penalty) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

(c)

The crime of obstruction of business established by the Seoul Northern District Court and the crime of obstruction of business established by the Seoul Northern District Court shall be sentenced to punishment in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time in relation to concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment by the Seoul Northern District Court on April 14, 2017 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 11, 2017.

Interference with the duties of the court below against the defendant and interference with the above duties, etc. for which judgment becomes final and conclusive, shall be sentenced in consideration of the equity with the case where a judgment is to be rendered simultaneously in accordance with the main sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's argument about mental and physical weakness is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. In light of the background leading up to the Defendant’s commit the instant crime and the means and method of committing the instant crime, it is deemed that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of preventing the instant crime.