The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In relation to the cost of issuing a written diagnosis of injury at a hospital operated by the victim D, who is a misunderstanding of facts, there is no possibility that the Defendant might interfere with the operation of the hospital by avoiding a disturbance or spiting it.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one million won of fine) by the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim made a statement at the police that "in the course of issuing a general diagnosis request to request the issuance of a letter of general diagnosis which is not a certificate of injury related to the injury case by visiting the hospital operated by the victim and requesting the issuance of the certificate of general diagnosis related to the injury case, so it was difficult for the victim to avoid disturbance, such as why the defendant is informed to the Corporation in the course of issuing the letter of general diagnosis, and thus, spiting or spiting it," ② The police police at the time called the witness at that time made it difficult for the victim to avoid disturbance, such as "the defendant made a spiting and spiting it," and therefore, it was consistent with the victim's statement. ③ The victim's statement was also consistent with the victim's statement in light of the fact that the defendant interfered with the business of the victim as stated in the crime in the judgment of the court below.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The crime of this case regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing is an unfavorable circumstance in which the Defendant committed an act of disturbance in the course of performing his legitimate duties in relation to the issuance of a medical certificate and thereby temporarily obstructed the hospital’s business, and the liability for such crime is not provided against the victim, and is not agreed with the victim.

However, the degree of interference with business due to the crime of this case is relatively minor, and the defendant does not have the same power.