The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Regarding the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing), there is no assault against the victim.

With regard to interference with business, the Defendant did not have any fact using an emergency watch and trying to shoulder the window of a bus, and did not contain any fact that the passengers intending to restrain the Defendant. However, it is only that the passengers, who were behind the Defendant’s moving to the back seat, did not block and turn off the way, and moved to the back seat.

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (4 million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the point of assault, the witness D of the court below consistently stated the background and part of the assault crime of this case from the investigative agency to the court below, the appearance of the perpetrator, and the circumstances after the crime.

Although the testimony of the court below F and H also differ in some of the detailed matters concerning the part of the injury, it seems that these differences are based on a pure witness, and the overall purport of the defendant's assaulting the victim is consistent with the witness D's statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below.

Comprehensively taking account of such evidence as D, F and H’s statements and the remaining evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, the Defendant abused the victim D in the same manner as indicated in the facts charged at the time.

full recognition may be accepted.

In light of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to interference with the business, in particular, in light of the CD video reproduction and viewing result (23:36:20 - 23:38:25), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge “the fact that the defendant sought to destroy bus windows with an emergency watch,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. However, according to the above evidence, the criminal facts changed from the following [the case used again] can be acknowledged.

Therefore, it is true.