A. The Defendants’ interference with the business of the victim F’s general restaurant business by force, such as misunderstanding of facts (i.e., interference with the business) only dealt with G in the process of avoiding the advance payment of the trial cost, and obsting with the large interest as stated in the first instance judgment, etc.

The defendant A) did not interfere with the execution of official duties by assaulting police officers I as stated in the first instance trial.

Defendant B did not take a bath to the victim I, who is the police officer, as stated in the first instance trial.

B. It is unfair that all of the punishments of the first instance judgment against the illegal Defendants (Defendant A: fine of 2 million won, Defendant B: fine of 1 million won) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the judgment of the first instance court and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance trial was clearly erroneous.

In light of the special circumstances or the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate trial, maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is not significantly unfair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). The first instance court found the credibility of each of the facts charged of the instant case against the Defendants after the completion of the direct examination of evidence, such as the progress of the examination procedure for the examination of witness I and F, and found the credibility of each of the facts charged of the instant case. Although the above witness’s statement in detail is inconsistent with the statements made by the investigation agency, it is erroneous or because it is the limit of memory.