A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which led to the Defendant guilty, even though the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s convenience store business as stated in this part of the facts charged, although he did not interfere with the victim’s convenience store business.

B. Sentencing (as to the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2), the sentence of the court below against the defendant (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, and the second instance court: 2 years) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio, the Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal against the judgment of the court below No. 1 and the judgment of the court below No. 2.

Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 against the defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment shall be imposed within the scope of aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced a separate punishment against the defendant and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged (the point of interference with business among the first instance judgment) is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) around 13:52 on April 28, 2020, at the house located in the territory of the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the “H convenience store” and the “H convenience store”; (c) the Defendant, who was placed in the display stand, demanded a refund to the victim AA (the employee, 25 years old) (the employee) (the employee) before calculating the instant case, he was laid off, but the victim refused a refund; (d) the Defendant laid down a vinyl to the victim, and (e) the Defendant was waiting to sat down the salted fish and the instant cup.

“I am a large sound, and am a disturbance, and I am a convenience store by putting in the World Cup which was drawn above the Kabter.”