The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal was not the purpose of retaliation against the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Article 5-9(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides for a limited term of not less than one year, which is greater than the statutory penalty under the Criminal Act, where a crime of assault, etc. is committed under the Criminal Act for "the purpose of retaliation against the provision of a criminal investigation team, such as a criminal complaint or accusation, statement, testimony or submission of materials in connection with the investigation or trial of a criminal case of a criminal case of a person or a third party" or "the purpose of prohibiting the provision, statement, testimony or submission of materials, such as a criminal complaint or accusation, or of allowing cancellation of

Here, whether an actor had such an objective should be reasonably determined in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the offender’s age, occupation, and other personal factors; motive and process of the crime; method of the crime; content and mode of the act; personal relationship with the victim; and the circumstances before and after the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12055 Decided June 14, 2013). Meanwhile, since the prosecutor bears the burden of proof as to the facts constituting the elements of a crime prosecuted in a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proof as to the facts that constitute the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proof as to the crime committed in violation of Article 5-9(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that there was a purpose of retaliation against the person committing the crime committed in violation of Article 5-9(2

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9030 Decided September 26, 2014). B.

Based on these legal principles, this case is based on this legal doctrine.