A. In the main point operated by the victim D, the Defendant did not commit an act of disturbance, such as dumping beer boxes up or destroying flowerss, etc., and even though he did not interfere with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant sentencing case, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the crime of interference with business as to the crime of interference with business. The term “componion” in the crime of interference with business means any force capable of suppressing a person’s free will, regardless of whether it is tangible or intangible, and in reality, it does not require a suppression of the victim’s free will. However, in light of the offender’s criminal status, surrounding circumstances, etc., whether it constitutes force ought to be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons, capacity, mode of duty, type of duty, and the victim’s status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 209). The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, which was duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the victim, from the court below to the prosecution, and the Defendant’s desire to move out of the police station, etc., and the Defendant again reported the Defendant’s desire to the police.