1. The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed.

2. Defendant R shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

1. Progression of judgment and occurrence of final binding force;

A. According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

1) The prosecutor prosecuted the Defendants as follows.

① Defendant K: Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (damage of Property, such as Group and Deadly Weapons, etc.) (At the first trial of the lower court, Defendant K applied for permission to change the name of the crime to “damage of special property” on the date of the first trial of the lower court, and each of the applicable provisions to “Article 369(1) of the Criminal Act” and the lower court granted permission.

Defendant

2) Defendant R: Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (damage to a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and insult2), the lower court convicted Defendant K of all the charges, and ordered Defendant K of a fine of KRW 2 million and a fine of KRW 3 million against Defendant R respectively.

3) As to this, the Defendants appealed on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing, and the Prosecutor appealed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

4) Prior to remand, the first instance court dismissed all the appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor.

5) As to this, the Defendants appealed on the grounds of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the judgment of the court prior to remand.

6) The Supreme Court accepted the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles on the part of damage to special property, and rejected Defendant R’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles on the insult portion, and all the part of the judgment below prior to the transfer of money was reversed and remanded to the first instance court.

B. The part rejected in the final appeal on the grounds that the grounds for the final appeal are groundless in the scope of the scope of the deliberation and the final binding force shall have become final and conclusive simultaneously with the adjudication, and the defendant shall not be able to contest against this part, and the court that received the refund shall not make a decision contrary thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do920, May 11, 2006). Accordingly, the grounds for appeal by the defendant R against the judgment of the court below are among the reasons for appeal by the defendant.