The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, at the Seoul Southern District Court on January 14, 2016, received a summary order of KRW 500,000 from February 7, 2015 to February 14, 2015, a fine of KRW 500,00 for criminal facts, which became final and conclusive. As such, the criminal facts for which a summary order has been issued and the facts charged in the instant case are in the relation of a single comprehensive offense, the judgment of acquittal shall be pronounced since the res judicata effect of the summary order in the instant facts charged has not been expired.

Nevertheless, the facts charged in the instant case and the facts charged for which a summary order became final do not constitute a single comprehensive crime.

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The person who has affixed the instant banner by mistake of fact is not an employee of the defendant or the defendant company.

The Defendant shall not install a banner at a place where business employees are not legally allowed by law.

However, the business members set up a banner at the prohibited place after setting up the defendant's direction.

Therefore, although the defendant cannot be punished as a violation of the Management of Outdoor Advertising Water, etc., the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Defendant’s act of installing 35 banners over 35 times from February 2, 2015 to February 5, 2015 is different from the place where the banner was installed in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, and thus, it should have been treated as concurrent crimes by deeming it as a separate crime by each act.

Nevertheless, the court below punished this as an inclusive crime, and such illegality affected the judgment.

Since the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

The defendant's mistake of facts despite the above reasons for reversal.