A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended sentence, 10 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 3 years of probation) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable;

B. It was true that Defendant B committed an act identical to this part of the facts charged in relation to Defendant B’s case 2013 high-level 1853 case, but Defendant B committed the act in the process of finding ownership of H in fact owned by himself. As such, Defendant B did not have the intent to interfere with business and damage property.

B) As to the case of the 2013 Highest 2175 cases, Defendant B’s Q buildings in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Q buildings (hereinafter “ Q buildings”).

However, Defendant B is a stock company S(hereinafter “S”) to engage in the same conduct as the facts charged.

As the actual owner of the AC building (hereinafter referred to as “AC building”) owned by the AAB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AA”) located in the Jeonsi-si AB in the Jeonsi-si (hereinafter referred to as “AA”), Defendant B performed the act identical to this part of the facts charged, on the grounds that Defendant B performed the above act in accordance with the agreement with R, the owner of the AA, and Defendant B did not have any intention to intrude the building, and thus, Defendant B did not have any intention to intrude the building (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B”) with respect to the case of 2014 Godan806, which was described in this part of the facts charged.

2) The lower court did not have any intention to commit an unfair sentencing as it did not have any intention to commit an unfair sentencing. 2) The lower court’s sentence on the grounds that it was too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly adopted the determination of the relevant assertion on the mistake of facts by Defendant B regarding the case of 12013 High Court Decision 1853.