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.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not comply with the victim’s request to leave from the Cheongju-si Mael (hereinafter “the instant telecom”) E as stated in the facts charged, and the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 15257, Dec. 19, 2017; effective December 19, 2017; and Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 15257, Dec. 19, 2017); and Article 457-1 of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as “instant case for which the Defendant requested formal trial”)

In Paragraph 2, "where a sentence heavier than a summary order is imposed on a case for which the defendant has requested a formal trial, the reasons for sentencing shall be stated in the written judgment.

Each of the terms “....”

According to the records, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 from March 22, 2018, which was issued a fine of KRW 1,00,000,000, and requested a formal trial as to the above summary order on April 3, 2018. Accordingly, the lower court, on June 28, 2018, sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 2,00,000,00, and recognized the fact that the reasons for sentencing were not stated in the written judgment.

Therefore, the court below sentenced a more severe punishment than that of a summary order on a case for which the defendant requested formal trial, but omitted the reason for sentencing in the judgment, thereby committing a mistake in violation of Article 457-2 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, there is reason to reverse ex officio as above.

Even if the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, it will be examined.

B. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.