The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. We examine ex officio determination. According to the records, the Defendant, on June 3, 2013, sentenced five months to imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court for the crime of interference with business, etc. on July 27, 2013. As such, the crime of interference with business, etc. for which judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of interference with business in this case is related to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and determined a punishment after considering equity with the case where judgment is concurrently rendered under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and examining whether to reduce or exempt the sentence. Thus, the lower court, which did not take such measures,

2. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows without examining the grounds for ex officio reversal.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by this court is as follows: "The defendant was sentenced to five months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court on June 3, 2013 and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 27, 2013" in all of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below; and "1. The summary of the evidence is as follows: The summary of the case agreement assistant, each written judgment (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Ra1089 case and the first instance court judgment)" are as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for addition of "the summary of the case agreement assistant, each written judgment (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Ra1089 case and the

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The sentencing grounds of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “the Criminal Procedure Act”) recognize the Defendant’s mistake, and simultaneously with the crime of interference with business for which the judgment became final and conclusive.