The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment on April 15, 2014, and received a written notification of the receipt of the trial record from this court on April 28, 2014, but did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days from the receipt of the written notification of the trial record, and no written petition of appeal contains any indication of the grounds for

B. The sentence (one million won of a fine) imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. For the purpose of Article 35 (1) of the Criminal Act for ex officio determination, the term “crimes punishable by imprisonment without prison labor or more” means crimes punishable by imprisonment without prison labor or imprisonment without prison labor, and in case of a fine selected among the punishments prescribed for such crimes, it may not be the subject of aggravation of a repeated crime;

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Do1018 delivered on July 27, 1982). Nevertheless, the court below selected a fine on the crime as stated in the judgment and sentenced a repeated crime to a more severe punishment. Thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds that the judgment of the court below was based on the above ex officio reversal.

Criminal facts

At around 06:00 on October 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed assault on the road in front of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul; (b) “Is the police of the Republic of Korea; (c) Is the police of the Republic of Korea,” and “Is the people’s stick to go,” and “Is the people’s stick to go,” and “Is the people’s walk,” and “Is the people’s walk, 3 times on the part of the Defendant’s hand,” and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness E and F in the original judgment;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning statement and entry in the police protocol to E;

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of punishment.