Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. With respect to the facts constituting the crime stated in Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below in the erroneous determination of facts, although the Defendant, at the time and place of this case, stated the front glass of the restaurant operated by the victim D with the aluminium flag for the purpose of width advertising, there was an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged of the damage to property.

B. As to the facts constituting the crime as stated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment below, the defendant above.

Even if there was a protest against the preceding interference of business that had been between the victim and the restaurant in the above paragraph, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle on force under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, even though the above act of the defendant was merely an act to ask the person concerned of the case about the circumstances, and thereby finding the defendant guilty of the charge of obstruction of business in this part.

2. Determination

A. 1) On September 2, 201, at around 06:00, the Defendant found the facts charged in this part of the facts charged on the “E” restaurant operated by Seo-gu Daejeon District Court C victim D, Daejeon, and reported himself to the police on October 16, 2010 on the ground that he reported himself to the police as a obstruction of business operation on October 16, 2010, thereby damaging the market price of 3.50,000 won, which is the victim’s possession. (2) Based on the relevant evidence, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

3) The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction is reasonable.