A. Although the Defendant did not have any desire for the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the victim tried to hold an annual event from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below under the pretext of delivering the matters to be reported in the preceding year on the instant seminars and training sessions; ② the victim was unable to raise an objection when he lost his qualification as a senior executive director of the Association, and the defendant raised an objection to the above event; ② the defendant stated consistently to the effect that he expressed the victim’s desire to “scambling” to the effect that he was unable to hear the victim’s body at the time of the court of the court below’s holding that it was difficult for the victim to attend the seminars and training courses of this case; ② G, HI, J, and K, which were present at the time, were consistent with the victim’s statement consistent with the victim’s statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below; ③ At the time of the seminars and training sessions of this case, the victim’s body was unable to hear the victim’s body.