The judgment below

The property damage part is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The defendant above.

1. Progression of litigation and scope of adjudication of this court;

A. (1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of obstruction of duties and damage to property among the facts charged, and rendered a fine of KRW 3 million and acquitted of general traffic obstruction.

As to this, the prosecutor appealed on the guilty part.

(2) Prior to the remanding of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below prior to the remanding of the case, which reversed the guilty part of the judgment of the court below, found the Defendant guilty of the damage to property and rendered a fine of KRW 2 million, and dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal.

On this issue, the defendant did not appeal, and the prosecutor appealed only to the acquittal and innocence.

(3) The Supreme Court rendered a judgment of remanding the case by accepting the prosecutor’s appeal on acquittal part and reversed that part, and dismissed the appeal as to the acquittal part.

B. The scope of this Court’s trial (2012 High Court Decision 4971), among the judgment below, the part concerning the obstruction of business among the judgment below, was determined separately due to the failure of the defendant to file an appeal, and the acquittal portion was also dismissed by the prosecutor’s appeal, and thus, the scope of the trial after remand

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, was already punished for the same facts constituting an offense as indicated in this part of the facts charged, once again punished as the instant case violates the principle of res judicata.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair.

3. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

(a)where multiple actions falling under the name of the same crime continue to be conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and the legal benefits of such damage are the same, each of these actions should be punished by a single comprehensive crime, but it is not recognized that the identity and continuity of the criminal is not recognized or that the method of the crime is the same.