All appeals filed by E, A, and Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant E’s interference with each business, misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, did not interfere with the business of the victim H and M’s entertainment drinking club operated by the victim’s H and, even if otherwise, even if the above victims were to engage in entertainment bar business so that they did not constitute the subject of protection of the crime of interference with business, the court below did not make an explicit decision on the above assertion and found Defendant E guilty of this part of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles or omitting the determination.

B) Although Defendant E merely borrowed money as stated in this part of the facts charged because it was in a friendly relationship with the above victims for a considerable period of time, the court below found the defendant E guilty of this part of the facts charged without making an explicit judgment as to the above argument, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or omission of judgment, and finding the guilty of this part of the facts charged. Defendant E related to the injury to the victim T, although there was a fact that the above victims were committed at the time of the above victims, there was no fact that the victim H had been injured, and there was no injury to the victim T, and there was no fact that the victim T did not suffered injury, such as scam, bones, etc., and even though the above victims made a statement to the purport that this part of the facts charged correspond to the court below's law, the court below erred by misapprehending facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or omission of judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. (b) Defendant A, in collusion with Defendant E, did not interfere with the said victim’s work because of the fact that Defendant A was in collusion with Defendant E on the part of Lone Amusement tavern operated by the victim H, she was humpted. Thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.