Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,500,000.

Defendant.

A. Fact-finding 1) On April 1, 2017, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the interference with business was committed on April 1, 2017 in the English teaching school operated by the victim D, but on April 1, 2017, the crime of interference with business is not established since the victim did not take lessons at the time. 2) On April 6, 2017, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the interference with business was committed on April 6, 2017, and the disturbance was prevented in the English teaching school operated by the victim D, and there is no fact-finding of the disturbance in the English teaching school operated by the victim D, and thus,

3) The fact that each intimidation and attempted threat as stated in the judgment of the court below in the second instance is the victim N, and the defendant told his agent of the above civil procedure that he would know about the victim's inhumanity relationship with S if he does not help the defendant's civil litigation which was in progress at the time. There was no threat as if he would cause a storm of S as stated in the facts charged in the second instance judgment, and there was no injury to the victim N as stated in the judgment of the court below in the second instance.

B. Legal principles (the fact that each of the judgments of the court below was made and attempted intimidation) also constitutes a crime of intimidation and attempted intimidation.

Even if the defendant's act is reasonable in light of social norms, it is not illegal as it constitutes a legitimate act.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the first instance judgment: the fine of KRW 1,500,000, and the second instance judgment: the fine of KRW 7,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance were pronounced to the defendant, and the defendant filed an appeal respectively, and the court decided to jointly examine the above two appeals cases.

The crime of each judgment of the court below against the defendant is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one of the above judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, since it is the concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1

However, there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.