A. In fact, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim U as stated in the facts charged in the 2017 High Order 2820, which was 2820.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of facts and evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court and the court of first instance, namely, ① the victim U consistently stated in an investigative agency and the court of first instance to the effect that the Defendant found the Defendant on the street store for the Defendant’s own at the time of the instant case, and there was a fact that he viewed the Defendant as a perjury. ② One of the co-offenders in the crime of special conspiracy of crimes in this case also P consistently stated to the purport that the Defendant would have sought on the victim U U’s street store at the investigative agency and the court of first instance. However, there was no particular reason for P to have the Defendant punished on the part of her false statement, and even if the Defendant did not enter the same, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was an intentional act of participating in the act of hearing the force of the organization on the sole basis of the fact that the Defendant, who was a strong man along with the above street store, and ③ there was no evidence between the Defendant and 25 U.S. victim’s personnel records.

M (hereinafter referred to as "the Union") is to search for the street scores and to obstruct the street services of the street vendors who do not pay taxes.