The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Erroring the facts about the gist of the grounds for appeal (the defendant only caused the damage to property at the hospital in a timely manner. It is unreasonable to punish the defendant to interfere with business separately in addition to the damage to property) and unreasonable sentencing.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was able to recognize the fact that the defendant had an interest in the above computer monitors in the care hours of the hospital of this case on the books of the nurse who had been employed in the care hours of the hospital of this case, and that the plaintiff was unable to provide medical treatment for about 10 minutes of the hospital due to the occurrence of disturbance, such as a computer monitor, window, line flag, etc. on his book by entering the house of the director of the Ministry of Home Affairs and I, and the plaintiff was able to provide medical treatment for one hour at the above office.

According to the above facts of recognition, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of interfering with the business of the hospital by avoiding disturbance as above is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. However, as above, the defendant's act of destroying and damaging property by throwing away or throwing away the chairss of the victim hospital, as seen above, was in a relationship of ordinary border agreement under Article 40 of the Criminal Act, which constitutes two crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do3035, Apr. 13, 1993). The court below held that each of the above crimes and the remaining crimes in the judgment are in a relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below is deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the above grounds for reversal are in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing.