The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

After filing an appeal against the lower judgment on November 29, 2016, the Defendant failed to submit a statement of reason for appeal within the submission period for a statement of reason for appeal prescribed in Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even after receiving a notice of receipt of the records of trial from this court on December 21, 2016, and the petition of appeal does not indicate the reason for appeal even in the petition of appeal.

However, according to the court's oral statement, etc. by the defendant, on January 24, 2017, the defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor and one year of suspended execution on the grounds of interference with business by the Seoul Northern District Court, and on February 1, 2017, it can be recognized that the judgment became final and conclusive on February 1, 2017. As such, in relation to the crime of interference with business already established and each of the crimes of this case committed concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentence shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is to be rendered at the same time pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, and in this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there is a ground for ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court is as follows. The judgment of the court below was rendered on January 24, 2017 by the Seoul Northern District Court with a judgment of six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution as a result of the obstruction of business operations. The judgment became final and conclusive on February 1, 2017.

“A previous conviction in the judgment of the court below” is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and the summary of the evidence is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in addition to adding “a prior conviction in the judgment of the court below” to “a prior conviction in the judgment of the court below.”

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code for the treatment of concurrent crimes, provided that Article 39.