Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

1. The Defendant in the facts charged in this case is the head of the C church located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and D is the cooperative pastor of the above church.

The above church is withdrawn from office as a full-time pastor belonging to the ENoo Association and another pastor is newly appointed, and the members are divided into two parts and are still in dispute.

At around 14:00 on December 10, 2017, the Defendant interfered with D’s towing by: (a) cutting off D’s body by hand on the ground that D, who was a pastor not supported by the Defendant, intended to deliver a vessel to the subject of the lecture; (b) cutting off D’s body into the floor by cutting off D’s body; (c) continuing to break up D’s body toward the string, towing D’s body toward the string; and (d) preventing D from carrying out snow and worship.

2. Determination

A. In the case of an ordinary concurrent relationship as stipulated in Article 40 of the relevant legal principles, the res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment on one of them shall also extend to other crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do643, Jun. 25, 1991; 91Do2642, Dec. 10, 191). “One act as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act” means that an act in accordance with the concept of society is evaluated as one of the natural conditions of things, regardless of the legal evaluation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Do2731 delivered on February 24, 1987). B.

Judgment

We examine this case in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

According to the records of this case, on April 27, 2018, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 300,000 won by the Seoul Eastern District Court for the crime of assault and the crime of assault and the crime of obstruction of worship, which are the facts charged of this case, committed against the same victim at the same time and at the same place, and the motive of the crime was committed in the process of drawing up the defects that the victim was forced to talk with the victim who was not allowed to give a worship, and that the motive of the crime is identical to the motive of the crime and the other party to the crime, and the act of assault in the final judgment is the means of the crime of this case.

Therefore, the above final judgment is rendered.