All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

The above fine shall be imposed to the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the judgment of the court below of first instance (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of sentencing) 1: The defendant did not interfere with the victim’s business as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentencing of the lower court’s first sentence (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. On the judgment of the court below of the second instance (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of sentencing) 1: The defendant did not destroy the wheelchairs part of the vehicle owned by the victim as stated in the judgment of the second instance court.

2) Improper sentencing: The punishment of the lower court No. 2 (200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The Defendant appealed from the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above two appeals cases.

According to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, each crime of the first and second judgment shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts against the judgment of the court below, the Defendant found the commercial store operated by the victim D around November 201, 2014, and thereby interfered with the said victim’s main business by avoiding disturbance as stated in its reasoning.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that this part of facts is erroneous is without merit.

(c)

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the second instance court as to the assertion of mistake of the facts against the judgment of the court below, the defendant led the fingers as stated in the second instance court and caused the collision of the wheelchairss in front of the left-hand side of the victim's vehicle.