The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months and a fine of up to 600,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of six months and the fine of six hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. According to each of the evidence recorded in the summary of the evidence as indicated in the judgment below, the Defendant may be found to have been sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution on April 14, 2017 at the Cheongju District Court’s Cheongju District Court’s Cheongju District Court’s order to interfere with the performance of official duties, etc. and on November 25, 2017.

However, in cases where the punishment for each of the crimes of this case is determined pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the punishment should be determined in consideration of the equity between the cases where the above crime was adjudicated concurrently with the final and conclusive crime, where the punishment for the crime of this case was determined pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, since there is a ground for reversal ex officio as above, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence related thereto were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 2 years suspended execution on April 14, 2017 by obstructing the performance of official duties in the Cheongju District Court’s Assistance, etc., and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 25, 2017.

“A previous conviction in the judgment of the court below” is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for adding “a prior conviction in the judgment of the court below: the Defendant’s trial statement at the trial, investigation report (verification of the fact that the suspect is pending in the trial), and the search of the Konetnet case (Cheongju District Court 2017 No. 474)” to the column for evidence. As such, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with business, choice of imprisonment), Article 314(3) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, each of the applicable laws and the choice of punishment for the crime.