The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles hear the speech of E, etc. who was a candidate for the D market at the time and time and place indicated in the facts charged of this case, and only expressed his thoughts and opinions, there was no violation of the order of the speech place, or assaulting F, an election campaign worker, and instead, the Defendant was assaulted and detained from the election campaign workers who control himself.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted each of the charges of this case on the grounds of the statements made by the above election campaign workers, etc. which are not reliable. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of an ex officio determination, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of an indictment to the effect that the part of the second sentence of paragraph (1) of the facts charged, “a approximately seven-thirds of 30 seconds, including intending to take a plastic paper finite, which was cited as a hand, in a large interest,” was changed to “gh 30 seconds, such as taking a bath in a large interest,” and the subject of the judgment was changed to that effect.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning this part of the facts charged was no longer maintained, and the court below rendered a single sentence considering the crime concerning this part of the facts charged and the remaining crimes in the judgment of the court below as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite such reasons for ex officio destruction, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court. As to the act of disrupting the order of the speech place among the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor tried to keep the vinyl which was cited in his hand as well as the abusive acts listed in the “a summary of these facts charged” as follows.