The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (15 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor prior to the judgment.

A. In a case where two or more persons are insulting, the number of insults is established according to the number of victims, and where two or more persons are insultd as a single act at the same time, the said number of insults are in the relation of mutual concurrences;

B. The record reveals that each offense of insult committed by the defendant can be recognized as having committed a single act of victim H and I around 16:50 on June 19, 2015. Thus, each offense of insult committed by the defendant is in a mutual conflict of interest.

However, the court below held that each of the above insult crime is in a substantive concurrent relationship with each other.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Articles 364(2) and 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the following is again decided after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 314 (1) (a point of interference with business), Article 136 (1) (a point of interference with the performance of public duties) and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. In the case of interference with the duties as indicated in the reasoning for sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with the detention of the workhouse, the victim seems to have been suffering of sexual humiliation as well as fear, and the case of interference with each offense of insult and performance of official duties in the judgment.