A. The Defendant claiming a misunderstanding of facts does not interfere with the operation of a private teaching institute by the injured party as stated in the facts of the judgment below.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by mistake of facts.

B. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the operation of the victim's private teaching institute as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of factual mistake is rejected.

2. Determination as to the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing

A. Improper argument of sentencing is unfair because it is too unreasonable that the sentence (an amount of KRW 500,000) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the following circumstances, in full view of the Defendant’s age, career, developments leading up to the commission of the offense, method of punishment, records of punishment, and all other matters pertaining to the sentencing as indicated in the instant records and theories of change, the Defendant’s improper assertion of sentencing is also rejected.

(1) A victim is punished for a defendant.

② The sentence determined by the original judgment seems to have taken into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant (such as the first offender), and there is no change in any special circumstance or circumstance that may be newly considered in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

3. In 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.