A. Regarding the fact-misunderstanding and interference with the misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that the Defendant committed the same act as the entries in the facts charged is inconsistent, but it was merely a minor act and did not reach the degree of “power” of interference with business affairs.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the term “power”, which is part of the elements for constituting a crime of interference with business under Article 314 of the Criminal Act, refers to the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., and in reality, the victim’s will of freedom is not required to be controlled.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim was unable to resist up to two to three minutes due to taking the defendant's seat at the office at the time when the victim was faced with danger to the life, and (ii) the victim stated that he was faced with fear of harm to the life, and (iii) the office flag, etc. was found to have been scattered even after photographing the scene at the time, it can be recognized that the defendant's act constitutes "power of force" as a crime of interference with the business. Thus, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

3. In full view of all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, circumstances surrounding the crime, and circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of the instant case including the degree of interference with the Defendant’s business, the Defendant’s criminal history, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the scope of reasonable discretion and is not recognized as unfair because it is too large, in the instant case where there is no change in circumstances concerning the conditions of sentencing in the trial compared with the lower court.

4. The conclusion is that the defendant's person.