A. Defendants 1) mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (limited to Defendant A) (limited to Defendant A), with respect to the case, the Defendant was first convicted of each of the facts charged in each of the above facts charged against the Defendants, by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, which led to the Defendant’s mistake of facts or affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of the facts, and breaking up the victim’s chest part of the Defendant’s chest with his arms, and not obstructing the victim’s duties by force as stated in the facts charged in the above case, and there was no intent to obstruct the victim’s duties. The Defendant did not intend to interfere with the victim’s duties. The Defendant’s above act constitutes self-defense. In relation to the case, [2013DaMa30] case, the Defendant did not want the victim to be in the same manner as indicated in the above facts charged in the above case against the Defendant, but all of the facts charged in each of the above facts charged in each of the above case against the Defendants, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant about the failure to withdraw from the charges of the defendant, although the defendant refused to comply with the above victim's request for withdrawal with the purpose of interfering with the business of the victim G association's business with the purpose of obstructing the business of the association's affairs, and the above victim's business related to the association was interfered with the above victim's business, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and the judgment of the court below which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The above sentence against the defendant of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the following facts are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.