The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor found in the trial of the instant case “In the F scraping golf course operated by the victim E,” and found the said G in relation to the her husband G while drinking with the victim’s husband G.

The Defendant found the part “ that the said G does not belong to the screen golf club operated by the victim G,” in relation to the dispute between the victim and the previous victim and the latter.

The defendant applied for permission to amend a bill of amendment to the contents that the damaged person did not have on screen golf course, and since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining each of the unfair arguments by the prosecutor and the defendant on the grounds of reversal ex officio as above, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

[Grounds for a new judgment] Criminal facts and the summary of evidence recognized by this court were found in the judgment below to find out the above G in relation to the dispute with the husband G while drinking with the victim E, among the criminal facts of the judgment below.

Defendant 1 did not fall under the screen golf course of the above G (17 to 20 reduction of the lower judgment) and “The Defendant found the victim in relation to the dispute with the victim’s previous victim while drinking the F Scrap golf course operated by the victim G, and drinking it with the victim.

With the exception of changing a damaged person into “not in a screen golf course,” the Defendant is identical to the description in each corresponding column of the lower judgment. As such, Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.