The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

In regard to the crime of assault against the victim D related to mistake of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant only had a name tag attached to the chest side of the above victim in order to confirm the name of the victim D, and there was no fact that the above victim was able to have a cell.

With respect to the crime of destroying property, the Defendant did not destroy the victim F's cell phone (the Defendant alleged that the repair cost of the mobile phone is not KRW 200,000,000,000). However, as seen below, there was a change in the repair cost of the mobile phone from " around KRW 200,00,000" to "non-performance" at the trial below. As to the crime of destroying property, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim D

Since the defendant did not cause physical or mental pain to the victim D with regard to the crime of assault related to the victim D by misunderstanding legal principles, the defendant's act does not constitute an act of assault under the Criminal Act.

With respect to the crime of damage to property, the illegality of the defendant's act is excluded because it does not go against social rules.

The illegality of the defendant's act of obstructing the business is excluded because it does not go against the social rules.

The punishment of the court below (one million won) which is unfair in sentencing is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, we examine the part of the facts charged in this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s “conscising the shoulder by hand, elbowing the chest by hand, etc.” as “conscising the upper part by hand, etc.” and “conscising the upper part by hand, etc.” under Article 2 of the facts charged, the part of “an amount equivalent to approximately KRW 200,00,000” under Article 2 of the facts charged was changed to “inscisf,” and the part of “one hour” under Article 3 of the facts charged was changed to this court and thus, the judgment below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's mistake and misapprehension of the legal principles still present in this court.