The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of the lower court (No. 1; 700,000 won; 2. 3 million won) is unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment on May 30, 2013 with prison labor for April, January, and March (U.S. District Court 2013No703), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 22, 2013. Since the crime of interference with business and assault of this case against the victim H, I, and J sentenced to three months of imprisonment with prison labor among the crimes for which the judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 (1) of the Criminal Act, the balance between the cases where the judgment is concurrently rendered under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the mitigation or exemption of punishment is omitted, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

The judgment of the court below of the second instance, which led to the confession of the crime of this case against the defendant, and the defendant did not have any previous charge, but the crime of this case is not likely to obstruct the sound order in distribution of alcoholic beverages and understanding of tax sources, and the second court below's crime of this case and the second court's crime of this case which is in the latter part of Article 37 concurrent crimes.

1. Criminal records;

(a).

Each offence described, and

C. In light of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is heavy, taking into account the following factors: (a) the period and scale of the instant crime, etc., taking into account the following factors: (b) the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) the period and scale of the instant crime.

Therefore, the court of first instance omitted the judgment on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing on the ground of the above ex officio reversal.