The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be determined by a fine of KRW 1,00,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The progress of litigation and the scope of trial for the case;

A. 1) The Defendant appealed a fine of KRW 3,00,000 against the lower court on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the part of the Defendant’s obstruction of business, the lower court reversed the lower judgment and acquitted the Defendant of KRW 2,00,00,00 on the ground that the Defendant was guilty of all the charges of assault, violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization, etc. (Defamation), obstruction of business, and damage to property. 2) The Defendant appealed on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the part of the Defendant’s obstruction of business, and rejected the remainder of the argument

3) Of the judgment of the appellate court prior to the remanding of only the Defendant, the Defendant did not appeal against the acquittal portion of the reasons for obstructing the business of the Defendant. However, the acquittal portion of the reasons was also found guilty on the damage of property in relation to the commercial concurrence with the Defendant. The Supreme Court appealed on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the Supreme Court reversed the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the damage of property, and rejected the remainder of the guilty portion, but the final appeal on the part of the appellate court prior to the remand was dismissed, but the acquittal portion of the reasons for obstructing the business of the appellate court prior to the remand is a commercial concurrent crime, and the entire appellate court reversed the judgment of the appellate court prior to the remand and remanded to the trial court prior to the remand on the grounds that the acquitted portion and the remaining guilty portion were in relation to the substantive concurrent crimes. (b) Since the part rejected in the final appellate court prior to the final appellate court’s judgment that the judgment did not have merit, the Defendant and the prosecutor cannot

Supreme Court Decision 208.12.