The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s penalty of KRW 5,00,000 (the fine of KRW 5,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

According to the records of this case, on April 19, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and for an injury, etc. by the court, and the above judgment was finalized on April 27, 2019.

The crime of interference with business and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and the crime of injury, which became final and conclusive on the judgment of the court below, are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and are in the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, taking into account equity with

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

[Discied Judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court are identical to facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence, and thus, they shall be quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant repeatedly prevents the victim of this case from committing a crime that interferes with business, and in particular, the defendant's liability cannot be deemed to be somewhat weak in that he committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period due to the same kind of crime.

However, the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case.