The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) (the defendant) found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding of facts, even though there was no disturbance, such as: (a) there was a defect of talking that the defendant found E was a defect of talking due to a short string of talks; and (b) there was no disturbance, such as passing along the same as the facts charged, in order to resist the passage of letters written by him to the panel.

2. Before determining the reasoning of the Defendant’s appeal ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for an assault at the Seoul Eastern District Court on December 30, 2015, and on March 18, 2016, it can be recognized that the judgment became final and conclusive on March 18, 2016. As such, the crime of assault and the crime of interference with the worship of this case, which became final and conclusive, are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of assault and the crime of interference with the worship of this case are determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment by taking into account equity and cases where the judgment is to be rendered at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the lower

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to a trial by this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is examined below.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the reasons for appeal, it can be fully recognized that the defendant interfered with the snow view of the pastor E by opening a door and opening a door at the time when the pastor E performs towing as shown in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.

Therefore, there is no error in the judgment of the court below as alleged by the defendant, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit, but the judgment of the court below has a ground for reversal ex officio as seen earlier. Thus, Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.