All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the Defendant only went to the police box to find out identification card on the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and that there was no disturbance (the judgment of the court below No. 1), and that there was no resistance from the hospital to refuse medical treatment, and that there was no interference with the hospital’s business (the judgment of the court below No. 2).

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, this Court decided to concurrently examine the appeal cases against the lower judgment. Each of the lower judgment against the Defendant is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with respect to each of the concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be imposed within the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

On the other hand, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, which is first examined, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

B. 1) According to CCTV video images, as the court below properly explained, the defendant found several police boxes and continued to spawn the police officers in response to the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and the witness K found the police boxes while under the influence of alcohol and spawn the police boxes and booming them.

The defendant made a statement, while under the influence of alcohol, and with a large noise, and the police box, which is a public prosecution officer, may recognize the fact that the defendant spirits or slicks by very rough words and actions.

2) According to the evidence related to interference with business, the defendant seems to have been in the hospital while putting in the hospital with the face of the reception stand, or having been in the hospital with an agrochemical bottled from outside the hospital, and witness F and D consistently have an agrochemical bottled by the defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the court below.