The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles, the Defendant already paid a penalty upon receiving a notice of disposition. Although the Defendant should have rendered a judgment of acquittal on the said facts charged pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant of the above facts charged also erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (hereinafter “fine 5,00,000”) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the record as to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the record of the instant case reveals the following facts: (a) on June 29, 2015, the Defendant: (b) had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had

According to the above facts, the act of interference with business, which is the offense for which the defendant paid the penalty, and the charge of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, are identical to the place of the offense, the date and time of the offense, and all of the acts derived from the Defendant’s disturbance. As such, the above facts are identical to the basic facts, and the effect corresponding to the final and conclusive judgement due to the payment of the penalty for the offense in accordance with Article 8(3) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act refers to the charges of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2642, Jul. 11, 2003). Accordingly, the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act among the facts charged in this case should have been pronounced acquitted pursuant to Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.