The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The lower court’s sentence (1,500,000 won) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, we examine ex officio the number of crimes between the crime of obstructing the business of this case, the crime of injury, and insult.

B. The crime of interference with the performance of duties, injury, and insult differs from the elements of the crime of interference with the performance of duties and protection of legal interests; the crime of interference with the performance of duties does not entail an injury or insult to a person generally and externally at the establishment of interference with the performance of duties; and the act of injury or insult cannot be deemed as a minor to the extent that it does not constitute a separate consideration as to interference with the performance of duties; thus, the act of injury to the victim and insult to the same victim becomes

Even if such an act constitutes a so-called dubal accompanying act, there is absorption relationship with regard to the crime of interference with business.

We cannot see it (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1895, Oct. 11, 2012, etc.). Ultimately, in such a case, the crime of interference with business and the crime of injury and insult are in the relation of commercial concurrence.

I would like to say.

In addition, if the crime of injury and insult are in a mutually competitive relationship with the crime of interference with duties, the crime of injury and insult are in a substantive concurrent relationship between the crime of insult and the crime of insult.

Even if there is no need to impose the punishment provided for the most severe crime in preparation for the crime of interference with the duties in the relationship of commercial concurrent crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1216, Feb. 9, 2001, etc.).

The facts charged of the instant case interfere with the operation and management of the said victim by avoiding disturbance, such as insulting the victim E on May 2, 2015 and causing injury to the said victim, and thus obstructing the operation and management of the said victim. As such, the Defendant’s injury and insult at the same time constitutes a case where the elements of the crime of interference with business are satisfied.

Thus, the crime of injury and insult of this case is in the relation of commercial concurrence with the obstruction of business.