A. The Defendant, by threat of force, did not interfere with C’s work of managing children’s house.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant was unable to operate the childcare center by having his/her parents, etc. go on four occasions from April 11, 2016 to April 13, 2016 when retired from office as an infant care teacher at the Riin house operated by C, and by having his/her parents, etc. sit on a bridge around the entrance of the childcare center, making it difficult for him/her to enter the childcare center, or by having them go on a large amount of fluor, etc.

B. In light of the following, the Defendant’s primary crime without any previous conviction, and the Defendant interfered with the operation of the child care center of the victimized person over several occasions; the victim wants to punish the Defendant; the police officer again committed the crime of interference with his/her duties even after the victim’s report was dispatched to the child care center; the Defendant again committed the crime of interference with his/her duties; the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, etc.; and other various sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.