The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) falls under the “Indication of compulsory disposition” under Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act, as stated in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “instant notice”).

2. Ex officio determination

A. The prosecutor, while maintaining the original facts charged as the primary facts charged at the trial, applied for changes in the indictment which added the applicable provisions to the facts charged as stated in the judgment below and applied for changes in the indictment which added them to the same contents as stated in the facts charged at the court below. This court permitted this.

B. As examined below, the judgment of the court below that only the previous primary facts charged cannot be maintained, inasmuch as the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged as added in the preliminary facts charged.

C. The lower court’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the primary charges of the prosecutor’s primary charges is still included in the subject of a trial on the political party. Therefore, the following is examined.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal (main facts charged)

A. The summary of the facts charged is the person who is responsible for the overall disaster manager of D in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City under the jurisdiction of the company B.

On May 2, 2017, the Defendant damaged the notice of provisional disposition, such as the suspension of management, which was attached by the enforcement officer of the Incheon District Court E, at the disaster prevention room located in the D-1st floor in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

B. The judgment of the court below is difficult to view that, in the case of a public notice merely notifying the contents of a provisional disposition, rather than a concrete indication of an execution act, it does not impair the utility of the indication of a compulsory disposition. Therefore, the provisional disposition, which served as the basis of the public notice, only imposes a certain omission or duty of act on the debtor, and did not carry out a specific execution act by the execution officer. Thus, the defendant's notice of this case is teared.