The judgment below

The defendant and the prosecutor's appeal against violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act are all dismissed.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 300,000 for a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, one year and six months, and a fine of KRW 10,00 for a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and the Defendant appealed each of the charges on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles,

Before remanding, the judgment of the court of first instance convicted all the facts charged, and sentenced 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor and 300,000 won of fine for violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and sentenced the defendant and the prosecutor respectively.

The Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor's appeal, and reversed and remanded the part concerning the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act in the judgment of the court before remanding, on the grounds of omission of sentence of the punishment of the fine, and dismissed the defendant's appeal.

B. Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act except the part concerning the obstruction of the defendant's appeal, which was dismissed, and the part concerning the obstruction of the execution of official duties and the

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, did not lead the public office to slickly by following the brush of the military waste flag, sitting above the flag, and doing so with a large sound.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,00) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unfair that the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) of the lower court is too unhued in the form of punishment (300,000 won).

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion by the Defendant is without merit, as it sufficiently recognizes the fact that the Defendant was satisfeing and satisfing the disturbance at the government office.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the wrongful assertion of sentencing by both parties is disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as having a record of criminal punishment at least ten times as a violent crime.