The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles), although the defendant could be found to have damaged the victim's front part by flabing the damaged part by flabing the damaged part in the front part of the vehicle, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor first examined the facts charged in the instant case, and the prosecutor took the first instance trial, and applied for changes in the indictment with the name of the crime interfered with business, applicable provisions of Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, and the facts charged as follows. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect since it was subject to the judgment upon permission.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts of this case is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is such ground for ex officio reversal.

[Preliminary Indictment] On October 21, 2012, the Defendant 20:00, the victim D was placed in the first floor parking lot underground of the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon Seodong-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, with the driver of the vehicle, thereby interfering with the victim's driving duties by force from October 22, 201:0 to October 36, 2012.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment on the grounds of appeal that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was not guilty on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the front driver of the vehicle was damaged in the process of binding the handculs on the instant vehicle by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone. We closely compare the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the reasons for the lower judgment.