A. Defendant (1) did not have committed each of the instant crimes. Defendant 1 did not have committed any of the instant crimes.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged in this case guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, 40 hours of order) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The "power of force" in the judgment of the defendant's assertion of facts refers to any force that may lead to suppressing or confusion with another's free will, regardless of the type or type, and the victim's actual intent is not required by force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1589, Oct. 12, 1995). It is sufficient that the crime of interference with business does not require the actual result of interference, and it does not require the result of interference with business, and it is sufficient that there is a risk of causing interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do944, Jun. 28, 1991; 2004Do847, May 27, 2005). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant's act of interference with or interference with the business of the victim, etc., with the disclosure of the evidence at least 5th of the evidence at the place of each of the court below's decision.

At the same time, each of the facts charged in this case can be sufficiently recognized, since the fact of non-compliance is sufficiently recognized even though the victim's patent-related act is publicly obscene and the victim's request to leave the victim D.