Defendant

A Imprisonment of 4 months and fines of 2.5 million won, Defendant G shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

A. Although the Defendants committed an act identical to the facts charged in each case of the 2018 Highest 1984, 2019 Highest 53, the Defendants did not have any influence on the victim’s access to the construction site due to such act, so there was no interference with the victim’s construction work, and there was no intention to interfere with the business.

Therefore, each judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court of unfair sentencing to Defendant A (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) and the sentence sentenced by the second instance to the Defendants (Defendant G: fine of three million won, Defendant A: fine of five million won) are too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the case of 2018 Godan1984, the first instance court stated that ① Defendant A and the first instance court had concluded a pentice installation contract changed the construction cost of KRW 2 million to the investigation agency. Don Don son stated that “I would like to change her money if I would have failed to do so?” so, Don Don son stated that “I would like to change her her gate at the entrance of (construction site)” (Evidence 37 pages), ② Defendant A stated that the investigation agency installed her pipe at the entrance of the construction site to the extent that it could have interfered with the transport of the victim’s photograph at the construction site, ③ Defendant A’s intentional interference with the transport of the pipe at the construction site, and Defendant A’s interference with the transport of the pipe at the intervals of the construction site.

Defendant

A's mistake of facts in this part.