The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In the main point of "E" located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul on October 17, 2012, the defendant paid a certain amount of the drinking value to the wind used by the defendant's female-friendly Gu, but although there is no violence or no destruction of the instrument, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts.

The punishment (fine 500,000) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, the defendant denied the facts charged in this case, and this court revoked the judgment of the court below that the confession of the defendant at the court below was decided in accordance with summary trial procedures pursuant to Article 286-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the confession of the defendant at the court below was recognized as not reliable on the date of the first trial by the court below,

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the trial court, such as the witness D's statement, etc., the judgment of mistake of facts is examined. The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit since it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the victim's work by getting the F, who was requested by the employee F, to display the drinking value at around 01:40 on October 17, 2012 at the main point of "E" where the victim D's work, had the F, who was requested to have the drinking value from the employee F, leave the customers who were drinking at the above main point.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The Defendant on October 17, 2012