The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. The sentence of the lower court (4 million won in penalty) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor of the judgment, the records show that the defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Southern District Court on March 25, 2016, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 17, 2016. Since the obstruction of the instant business is in the concurrent relation between the crime for which judgment became final and the crime for which judgment became final and the crime for which judgment became final and the crime for which judgment became final and the crime for which judgment became final and the crime for which judgment was followed after Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent relation, the judgment of the court below, which did not support the obstruction of the instant business, should be sentenced in consideration of equity with the case for which judgment becomes final and conclusive, pursuant to Article 39(1)

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, and the judgment below is reversed and it is decided as follows through pleadings.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of criminal facts and evidence against the defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Southern District Court on March 25, 2016, and the above judgment was finalized on June 17, 2016.

“A previous conviction in the judgment of the court below in the summary of the evidence” was added to “1. The case search (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016No. 502, Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016No. 502) and the judgment (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015No. 4346)” as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 of the same Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act (1) of the Confiscation Act (1): One year of imprisonment by the defendant for a violation of business affairs in 2012.