Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

Defendant

A does not pay the above fine.

A. The Defendants asserted that: (a) Defendant B had replaced the key entrance of the Fpention (hereinafter “instant pention”) managed by the victim by her key company; (b) however, Defendant A was only a parking lot after driving a car and arrived at the instant pention; and (c) Defendant B did not interfere with the instant pention business of the victim in collusion with Defendant B.

B. The Defendants asserted that there was an error of misapprehending legal principles in the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendants guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds that the Defendants did not have any admissibility because they fell under the hearsay statement and thus, they did not have any admissibility of evidence. In so doing, the Defendants asserted that the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that they did not have any admissibility of evidence.

C. The Defendants asserts that the sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

2. The ex officio determination prosecutor applied for amendments to a bill of amendment to the indictment with the content that "in the Fpention operated by the victim E" among the facts charged in the instant case to "in the Fpention managed by the victim E," and since this court was modified by permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, even if the above reasons for ex officio destruction exist, the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of determining the modified facts charged, and this is examined in the following

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendants in the modified facts charged are managed by the victim E in conspiracy on January 21, 2014, around 07:00.