All judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) As to the judgment of the court of first instance, the facts alleged by the Defendant of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine were true or at least there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant was true and that it was for the public interest, and thus, constitutes grounds for excluding illegality as prescribed by Article 310 of the Criminal Act. 2) The sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too heavy

B. 1) Regarding the mistake of facts against the judgment of the court of second instance, the Defendant did not mean that “the Defendant would drink money with no interest, receive money without interest.” 2) Although there was a fact that the Defendant made a speech that the victim would go against as stated in the judgment of the court below, it is merely an exaggerated expression by cultivating the victim as he was assaulted during physical fighting with the victim, and even if the Defendant made the victim’s speech that “non-interest” was the victim, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules in light of the situation of the Defendant at the time, the background leading up to the apartment management of the victim, etc.

3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine is too heavy).

2. Determination

A. On December 17, 2014, the first and second judgment rendered a separate hearing against the defendant on December 17, 2014, as Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Da1233 decided on December 17, 2014, and as Supreme Court Decision 201Da5696 decided on December 23, 2014, the first judgment sentenced the defendant to a fine of KRW 50,000 in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the second judgment sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,000 in the judgment of the court of second instance. The defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgments, and the court of first and second trials decided to jointly examine each of the above appeals cases. The first and second judgments of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the defendant should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.