The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that from the date of this judgment.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles - According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor for a non-crime portion, the court below which acquitted the defendant, even though the defendant could sufficiently recognize that the defendant interfered with the victim D's Lestop business, has erred by misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the suspension of 40-hour violent treatment lectures) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the judgment of the court below (as to the guilty part of the judgment below), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

In the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied the law to the defendant "Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.)" as "special intimidation". The prosecutor applied the law to "Article 3 (1), 2 (1) 1, and Article 283 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act," "Article 284, and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, "Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act," "Article 284, and Article 283 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group deadly weapon, etc.) of the same Act, "B" special intimidation "(a) of the Punishment of Violences, etc., Act No. 1, 283 (1) of the same Act," and the judgment of the court below was changed by permission, so the conviction part of the judgment below

B. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to the part not guilty in the judgment of the court below) 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: The Defendant, on June 20, 2014, on the second floor of the “E Lestop” located in Guang-si Seoul around 13:30, on the ground that the victim D of the business owner did not comply with the Defendant’s demand for the increase of the Defendant’s salary.

“Along with the large sound, the victim interfered with the victim’s Lestop business by force by avoiding the disturbance by taking the kitchen in the kitchen with the kitchen knife, etc., and preventing the customers who were meal from leaving the room and entering the room.

2) The lower court’s judgment is erroneous.