Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000, and by a fine of KRW 200,000.

A. Regarding the point of injury, misunderstanding of facts 1) In the process of preventing the victim (Defendant A) from harming the Defendant A, the said Defendant did not commit any harm by assaulting the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there was no intention to do so. 2) In relation to the obstruction of business, there was a fact that the Defendants raise a little arbitrity in the instant restaurant, but did not interfere with the restaurant business by force.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 500,000) imposed on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below concerning the point of injury: (i) the victim has consistently made a statement corresponding to the facts charged in this case from the investigative agency to the court of the court below; (ii) there is no other circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement; (iii) H's investigative agency and the court of the court below's statement; and (iv) the victim's photograph and written diagnosis of injury taken at the time of injury; (iv) the victim reported to the police for long time after the victim was damaged; and (iv) the defendant was not in a defense situation to avoid imminent danger in light of the situation at the rooftop; and in light of the degree of damage verified by the victim's photograph, it appears that the victim was unlikely to face the victim's hand, such as the defendant's defense in the court of the court of the court below; and (v) the fact that the victim suffered injury as stated in the facts charged in this case, and the intent of the crime is also acknowledged. Therefore, the above defendant's assertion has no reason to lawfully adopt the duty interference with the business.