A. There is no fact that the Defendant, on the date and time stated in the facts charged, found the victim in the singing room operated by the victim, but there is no fact that the Defendant interfered with his business by avoiding disturbance, such as putting the victim a bath or drinking.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's judgment, namely, ① the summary of the statement made by the victim at the court and the police room of the party court and the police room, are generally consistent with the purport that "the defendant has found in singing room with F, and the defendant has refused to receive it as a customer because of the experience from several times in the past, the defendant has been instructed from the defendant, and the defendant has refused to do so and reported the success to the police station in a singinging manner," and ② two years and four months have passed from the case at the time the victim made a statement at the court of the party court, the victim sing the defendant.

A statement was made to the effect that it is not possible to accurately memory whether he or she is a food or not.

Even if the victim cannot be deemed to have reversed the statement made by the police immediately after the case, ③ the defendant reported the victim and F to the police with respect to the act of setting F in the victim’s singing room, and the defendant frequently found it in the victim’s singing room even though there is no particular economic power, there is credibility of the victim’s statement to the effect that “the defendant was “the victim’s “the victim’s “h” and “the victim’s “the victim was sentenced to a fine” in the police, and the F also is in line with the defendant in the court of original instance.