A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, did not interfere with the Defendant’s duty by bringing the victim’s humiliation or causing a disturbance.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court also argued the same purport in the judgment of the lower court, and the lower court determined that the Defendant testified to the same effect as in the case of the lower court. In full view of the following: “A video at the time, the Defendant continues to make a speech to the victim; “E at the time, which was at the scene of the victim and the regular business of the said C, testified that the Defendant testified that the victim had been able to make a speech, and that the male employee continued to make a speech; ② At the time, the Defendant testified that, in the future of the Defendant’s taking a bath, the Defendant tried to talk with the Defendant and talk about him; ③ the Defendant’s obsing statement was made by the Defendant, and ③ the Defendant testified that the Defendant was 5 meters away from the place of the victim’s desire, ④ the victim testified that his work was obstructed with the Defendant’s desire, and testimony was made to the same effect, and thus, the lower court’s determination of facts cannot be justified in light of the evidence duly admitted, and thus, rejected the lower court’s judgment.

B. It appears that there was no time to interfere with the determination of unfair sentencing, and the Defendant’s economic situation appears to be very difficult, etc. are favorable circumstances to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant seems to have been aware of the victim prior to the instant case, and the defendant's desire seems to have suffered a considerable mental impulse.