A. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor against the crime are dismissed.

The judgment below

(2).

A. Defendant 1) In the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the crime No. 2-a. (f. interference with the business through fraudulent means): The victim C was unable to make a false reservation using his/her subscription system on the penty website in order to pretend that he/she had ordinary customers, and the reservation is cancelled when 24 hours have elapsed without paying the guest fee. Thus, even if the defendant made a false reservation to make it in the state of "contract atmosphere" by using the above reservation system, it cannot be deemed that the above victim interfered with the above victim's business.

In addition, the defendant did not have intention to interfere with the victim's work.

B) Part 2-B of the judgment of the court below (a crime of interference with business by force): The defendant did not commit any act identical to the facts stated in the judgment of the court below.

C) Part 3 of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below (in a case of insult): The defendant did not commit the same act as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (the first crime, second crime, second crime, third crime: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and second crime: imprisonment with prison labor for four months) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

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

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is sufficient that the crime No. 2-A of the judgment of the court below is determined as to the part of the crime (the crime committed by deceptive means as to the obstruction of business) (the crime committed by deceptive means) and the crime committed by obstruction of business through deceptive means does not require that the result of obstruction of business was actually generated, and there is a risk of causing the obstruction of business (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4772, Sept. 10, 2009, etc.). 2), according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant was connected to the reservation bulletin board of the fence site operated by the victim C on May 20, 2014, and promised the above gate as of May 24, 2014 as of May 24, 2014.

7. Until December 23, 200, all together as shown in Appendix 2.