A. The court below erred in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in finding the defendant's illegal business reports as false reports, and found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant's reports are true reports.

B. In light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant has grow in an unreasonable manner and against the fact that the Defendant was on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for one year and three months (the 40-hour order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (1) the defendant stated that he had the enemy reported without confirming the victims' illegal business (Evidence No. 182 pages), (2) the defendant stated that he reported to the police since the victims did not come back on his own side and do so (Evidence No. 189 pages), (3) the police in receipt of a report by the defendant, but the illegal business as reported by the defendant was not confirmed, it can be recognized that the defendant reported false facts and obstructed the victims' business as stated in the facts charged in the instant case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is appropriate, and it is unreasonable to view that the sentence is too unreasonable, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s punishment was committed repeatedly; (b) the Defendant’s history of punishment was eight times; and (c) the Defendant did not endeavor to recover from damage up to the trial.