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. The Defendant did not commit a crime identical to that stated in the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

According to the records of this case and this court, the defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Drivers, Violence, etc.) at the Daegu District Court on April 19, 2016 and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 19, 2016, and the facts that the judgment became final and conclusive on October 21, 2016 after being sentenced to six months of imprisonment for the crime of interference with business at the Ulsan District Court on June 29, 2016, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Drivers, etc.) against the defendant and the crime of interference with business which became final and conclusive on October 21, 2016 in relation to a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer upheld.

However, the judgment of the court below is a ground for ex officio destruction, but the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court.

B. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, especially the statements made by investigation agencies of C, D, and E, and CCTV video recording, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant assaulted C, D, and E, a police officer assigned for special guard, to interfere with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the protection of office buildings and control of access by the police officer assigned for special guard.

Therefore, it is true.