The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant could fully recognize the facts that the defendant was harming the deaf-do in this case (the primary facts charged) or the general goods (the ancillary facts charged) of the deaf-do in this case. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and denying it for the reasons stated in its holding, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In the trial of the court, the prosecutor of the judgment ex officio held that the name of the crime in the instant preliminary charges is "violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act", "Article 3 (1) 22 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act", "Article 3 (1) 22 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act", and the facts charged are modified as stated below, and this court's permission was modified, and the facts charged in the instant preliminary charges are found guilty as stated below. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the argument that the prosecutor's primary facts charged are still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined (it is not decided as to the prosecutor's assertion that the prosecutor's mistake of the facts of the conjunctive facts charged in the trial of the court below, which made changes in indictment in the indictment in the trial

A. In full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s place where gasoline was fluored as “teas” rather than “a concrete road” in front of the instant deaf-gu, in which the Defendant asserted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court along with the circumstances revealed by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.