All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the defendant did not engage in any act as described in the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the company operated by the defendant was committed as a national bank, but merely demanded correction since the national bank operated the computer ledger illegally and reported the defendant as a terrorist. Thus, each of the judgment below of this case erred by mistake of facts.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, this Court tried by combining the appeal cases of KRW 2 with the appeal cases of KRW 1 in the judgment of KRW 2 in the judgment of KRW 1 in the appeal case of KRW 2 in the judgment of KRW 2 in the judgment of KRW 37 in the judgment of KRW 37 in the case of concurrent crimes, and each interference with the duties of the defendant in the judgment of KRW 1 and 2 in the judgment of KRW 37 in the relation of concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act shall be punished as a single sentence within the scope

B. In addition, according to the court’s statement, etc. at the trial of one defendant, the defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment by the Seoul Western District Court (2017 order order 362) on June 28, 2017 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 10, 2017.

Thus, the crime of interference with each business of this case and the crime of interference with business of which judgment became final and conclusive prior to the conclusion of the above judgment are concurrent crimes with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which require the application of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is in this regard.

3. Notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the judgment of this court is still necessary. Thus, even if the Defendant’s assertion is a fact, this is about the motive of crime, which can be considered in sentencing, and it does not affect the establishment of a crime of interference with the Defendant’s business.