A. When the Defendants were unable to receive the construction cost from the victims, the Defendants merely requested the victims of the construction site of this case to help them receive the price, and they did not interfere with business as stated in the facts charged of this case, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of all circumstances, such as the fact that the instant crime of unfair sentencing was committed by the victim due to the lack of the payment of construction cost and the occurrence of construction cost has occurred by the victim, the punishment sentenced by the court below (the fine of KRW 1.5 million per year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) around 13:00 on March 19, 2012, the Defendants were unable to have avoided disturbance, such as: (a) around 30 minutes after finding the site at around 13:0; (b) those parts in the site were unable to engage in the work; and (c) those parts in the site were unable to find back the site at the site after visiting the site as above; and (b) the Defendants visited the site of this case; (c) those parts of the instant case after visiting the site at the site; and (d) those parts of the Defendants visited the site at the site and interfere with the work of the site and interfered with the work of the victim; and (d) on March 20, 2012 and March 21, 2012, the Defendants sent to the police with the victim’s report; and (d) those parts of the instant case were not interfered with the work of the victim.

B. As to the allegation of unfair sentencing, the instant crime is committed.