A. The sentence (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of community service) imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhutiled and unfair.

B. As to Defendant 1’s interference with the mistake of facts, the Defendant only committed an act such as a person who sits down only after drinking alcohol because it is difficult for him to do so, or who was locked up with a sloping sloping, and did not interfere with the business of the victim as stated in the facts charged. In addition, as to the crime of assault, the Defendant only taken son first in response to the Defendant’s knives, and did not assault the victims as stated in the facts charged. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged above is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (A) As to the Defendant’s argument of mistake of facts, “comfort force” in the crime of interference with business refers to any force sufficient to suppress the Defendant’s free will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2178, Jun. 24, 2007). As to the crime of interference with business, the term “comfort force” includes not only assault, threat, but also pressure by social, economic, political status, and royalty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2178, Jun. 24, 2007). However, it does not need to control the victim’s free will. However, it refers to a force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1589, Oct. 12, 195). The term “comfort force” refers to the date and place of crime, motive, number of persons involved in the crime, type of force, type of the victim, and status of the victim.