All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts regarding the Defendant’s obstruction of business affairs was merely punished with the victim’s entrance to the defense against the use of the victim E (hereinafter “victim”)’s tangible force, and did not intend to interfere with the Defendant’s operation of the restaurant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the prosecutor's injury, it is recognized that the defendant abused the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, thereby causing the victim with an original propoppy in serious brain disorder requiring medical treatment for a period of three months.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no proof of crime.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

C. The Defendant asserts that the lower court’s sentence (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service work, 120 hours) on the grounds of unfair sentencing by both parties is too unfasible, and the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the following circumstances acknowledged by the record on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① a witness G, and H consistently made a statement in an investigative agency and the court below to the effect that the Defendant acted to obstruct the victim’s operation of the restaurant, ② there is no special circumstance to suspect the credibility of the witness’s statement, which is an objective third party, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant is sufficient to interfere with the victim’s operation of the restaurant, such as the facts constituting a crime of interference with the duties