A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant is a not-guilty building C in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) The Defendant was aware of the instant building owner’s legitimate exercise of rights and did not have any intent to interfere with the business, and did not interfere with the victim’s business by in collusion with B and did not change the key to the instant building by requesting the replacement of the key to the entrance of the instant building. (2) The Defendant knew of the instant building owner’s legitimate exercise of rights and did not intend to interfere with the business.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the ground of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant also held the lower court.

1.(a)

1) The court below asserted the same purport as stated in paragraph (1) and rejected the above assertion in its reasoning. Examining the contents of the court below’s reasoning closely with the records of this case, this part of the judgment below is justified. 2) Next, we examine the allegation that there was no intention to interfere with business.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s intent to interfere with the business may be acknowledged. (A) The victim entered into a lease agreement with the J, the wife South-Nam of the instant building on February 26, 2016, and made a report on the sale of livestock products and made a business registration by using the instant building as the location of the instant building on the same day. (B) On February 26, 2016, the Defendant and B succeeded to the status of each of the aforementioned business operators on February 26, 2016, after obtaining a meat packaging business license for the instant building at the seat of the instant building; (b) changed the key of the entrance of the instant building and prevented the victim from entering the police, and thereafter, the victim was mobilized by four male victims on April 13, 2016.