The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts charged of this case by misapprehending the legal principles are that the defendant interfered with affairs concerning the access management of the victim's church worship distribution and assaulted the victim, and the crime of assault and the crime of obstruction of business are crimes of ordinary concurrence.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as a substantive concurrent crime.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. Interference with the relevant legal doctrine and assault are different in terms of the composition requirements and protection of legal interests, and a general typical act of assault against a person is not accompanied by the establishment of a obstruction of business, and the act of assault is not considered as minor as much as the obstruction of business is not considered separately compared to the obstruction of business. Thus, even if the act of assault against a victim becomes a means of interference with business with the same victim.

Even if such assault constitutes a so-called “fluoral accompanying act” and constitutes a absorption relationship with regard to a crime of interference with business.

shall not be deemed to exist.

However, the crime of assault and the crime of obstruction of business are in a substantive concurrent relationship in a case where one act practically satisfies several constituent requirements, and where there is any reason to interfere with the business of the victim by means other than assault.

However, if there is no circumstance to obstruct the business of the victim by means other than assault, one act satisfies the requirements for the composition of the crime of assault and the obstruction of business, and both crimes are in an ordinary concurrent relationship.

b. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant entered the instant church around 05:32 on the day of the instant case and was under the influence of alcohol to attract the victim to the outside of the church at around 05:38, while driving in around 11, 2012.