The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

A. Although the defendant misunderstanding facts proposed the victim to use a trade union office (hereinafter "the office of this case") together with the victim, the victim is not using the above office, so there was no intention to obstruct the defendant's business, and there was no fact that the defendant not only interfered with the victim's business.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the maximum taxi company had been used solely by the trade union to which the victim belongs due to internal circumstances of the company belongs and the trade union to which the victim belongs; (ii) the Defendant and the victim did not reach an agreement on the use of the office of this case; (iii) the Defendant, upon intrusion upon the office of this case on January 15, 2016, did not arbitrarily collect the victim from the office of this case; and (iv) corrected the office entrance of this case with new locks; (iii) the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 as a crime of intrusion upon the building; and (iv) the Defendant occupied the office of this case and used most of the office of this case, making it difficult for the victim to use the office of this case properly, thereby obstructing the operation of the trade union of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. Determination on the unfair argument of sentencing belongs to the defendant.