The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts charged No. 1 of the facts charged, the Defendant did not add clothes, or did not interfere with the principal revocation, at the D District Zone of the Doldong Police Station or at the North Korean Eup/Myeon office.

With respect to Article 2-b of the facts charged, the Defendant did not have the owner of the tobacco at the time of the second arrival to the G convenience store around September 26, 2016, and the Defendant did not get the convenience store to the owner of the tobacco, and there was no fact that he did not get the convenience store to the owner of the tobacco.

B. The sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendant to the punishment (the imprisonment of six months, the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the reasoning of the Defendant’s appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds of the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for an amendment of an indictment to the effect that “I am at the time of the trial of the first instance, I am at the time of the trial of the first instance, I am at the time of the trial of the first instance, I am at the time of the first instance, which read “I am at the string of the salary class, I am at the string of the salary class, I am at the string of the salary class, and then I am at the string of the tobacco, I am at the time of the first instance trial.”

As above, the revised facts charged and the remaining facts charged guilty in the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence shall be imposed on all of them. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in its entirety.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to a trial by this court within the scope related to the changed facts charged, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is examined below.

B. 1) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the facts charged No. 1, the lower court determined that the Defendant would be under the influence of alcohol on the D District of the Glman Police Station from September 22, 2016 to 20:15 the same day.