Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

1. On August 22, 2009, the Defendant: (a) around 20:20 on August 22, 2009, the charge of this case revealed that the Defendant was trying to drive a DNA car in front of the Northern-gu C in the above location to park at the above location; (b) on the ground that the victim E was unable to park at the victim E, who was working as the above C security guard, and was at the head of the worn-out, the Defendant caused danger to his life by causing the victim to face the left-hand side of the victim at one time due to his shock, causing the victim to face with his head at 16 weeks of treatment.

2. According to the judgment of the court below, the defendant received a notice of a penalty of KRW 30,00 won from the chief of the police station on the day of this case on the ground that he violated Article 1 subparagraph 26 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act by disturbing nearby C at the port from August 22, 2009, and received a notice of a penalty of KRW 30,000 from the chief of the police station on the day of this case, and paid the penalty on the 26th day of the same month. The facts charged in this case and the facts charged in violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act are the same place of the crime, and are almost the same as the date and time of the crime, and all of the defendants are made in a series of processes against the victim and vehicle parking problems. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the basic facts are identical.

However, Article 7(3) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides that anyone who pays a penalty after receiving a notice of penalty payment disposition shall not be punished again for the relevant offense. This recognizes the validity corresponding to a final judgment for payment of penalty pursuant to the above notice disposition, and thus, the facts charged in the instant case fall under the time when a final judgment has been rendered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2642, Jul. 11, 2003).