All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable (the decision of the court below No. 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and the decision of the court below No. 2: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months).

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

The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold the two appeals jointly.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court below against the defendant should be sentenced to a single punishment within the scope of aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to each of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as there are grounds for reversal ex officio, and the following is decided after pleading.

[Re-written judgment] The criminal facts against the defendant recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of damage to property), Article 369(1), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of damage to special property), Article 329 of the Criminal Act (the point of damage to special property), Article 329 of the Criminal Act (the point of intention) and selection of imprisonment for each term of imprisonment;

1. The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes appear to have an attitude to make all the crimes of this case and to reflect their mistakes, such as the Defendant’s obstruction of duties, the victim of property damage and the lower court’s agreement, and the Defendant’s disease, such as alcohol dependence, are favorable to the Defendant.

However, the defendant's business is ancillary to the restaurant.