A. While the Defendants asserted that the punishment (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and four months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, the Defendants appealed from each of the grounds that the lower court’s punishment against Defendant B is too weak. However, the Prosecutor appealed from the lower court’s punishment against Defendant B.

B. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty in collusion with the defendant B, although the defendant B did not interfere with the business, is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to interfere with the victim’s stores and stores operated by the victim R can be acknowledged.

1) The victim R consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the effect that “Defendant A, while under the influence of alcohol, was able to continue to sit and take a bath on the boom, and Defendant B was able to take a bath to customers, and she was able to drive away from the customers only when she speaks.” Also, the investigation agency and the court of the court below made a statement to the effect that “B, upon receiving a report from the victim on the day on the day when the crime was committed, was committed, she was able to drive away from the customers.” Also, the Defendant B, without any end, expressed that “I am going to the bnd and her desire to go to the customers while going to the bnd, I am going to the bnd and her desire to go to go to the bnd,” and that “I am to the police officer on the day when she was called to the victim on the day when she was called to the court of the court below.”