The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the point of causing destruction and damage) (the Defendant’s act of causing destruction and damage) constitutes an act that does not violate the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act and thus, is not unlawful, since the Defendant’s act of removing a notice from the Defendant’s act constitutes an act that does not violate the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes an act that does not violate the rule of society.

3) In light of the following: (a) the lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 800,000) is too unreasonable and unfair; (b) the prosecutor 1) the Defendant’s initial police statement at the police stage of the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts (an attempted confinement) and the fact that the Defendant’s identity in CCTV images is confirmed to prevent the victim from spreading and block him/her on several occasions; and (c) the Defendant’s intention

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the attempted confinement on the ground that the intention of confinement cannot be recognized, is erroneous and erroneous.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable. 2. We examine ex officio prior to the lower court’s judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor. The prosecutor, in the first instance trial, maintains the facts charged for attempted confinement, which acquitted the Defendant at the lower court as the primary facts charged, and applies for changes in indictment added to the name of the offense in preliminary charge, “Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act” in the applicable provisions, and the following [Article 260(2) of the Criminal Act] in the facts charged, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

However, as examined below, the court acquitted the attempted confinement, which is the primary charge, and convicted of the assault, which is the ancillary charge.