The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event that there is no evidence that the Defendant’s act of disturbance at the time of the instant case was significantly detrimental to the peace of neighbors’ daily life, etc., the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of the instant case by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (the amount of KRW 50,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant, on April 3, 2010, committed an act of disturbance in front of the Dong-dong District and the Dong-dong District in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon on April 3, 2010.

B. 1) The burden of proof of criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it shall be judged as the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002, etc.). 2) Even if there is no evidence consistent with the above facts charged as evidence consistent with the facts charged, the evidence of the police officer D as stated in the control of the content of the control, including the police officer D's statement and control contents, the unpaid penalty, the notice of decision-making, but in light of the following circumstances, even if there is a notice of decision-making, the above evidence alone interferes with the defendant's daily life at the time and place indicated in the facts charged of this case to the extent that it impedes the peace of neighbors.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, and thus, the defendant's mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles are justified.