We reverse the judgment of the court below.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court: the fine of KRW 4 million; the second instance court: the fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, this Court decided to hold a joint hearing of the appeal cases against the judgment below. Each of the judgment below against the defendant is in concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be imposed within the term of punishment, which increased concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment (a point of destruction), Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of interference with business), Articles 262 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of harm caused by violence) and selection of fines, respectively;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (the crime of destruction of property and the crime of interference with a person's business on March 25, 2015, and punishment prescribed by the crime of interference with a heavier business);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the said Act (the punishment shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed by a person who interferes with one’s own business on August 2, 2015, the largest period of punishment for concurrent crimes);

1. The reason for sentencing of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract the Nowon-gu Station not only damaged property equivalent to 1970,000 won of the amount of the defendant, but also interfered with the cultivation of the victim's crops for four times, and thus, the damage is not substantial, and water supply is used.