Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The Defendant asserts that the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) The Defendant’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense on October 23, 2014 was submitted after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal expires, and the argument stated in the above summary of the argument cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal). (1) The Defendant’s attempt to enter a factory on August 25, 2012 by the victim’s defense counsel on August 25, 2012 is a single inquiry that took place on the date following the full payment of the successful bid price (Article 1 of the Criminal Act in the original judgment). The Defendant’s attempt to enter a factory on September 7, 2012 by the victim’s defense counsel is for sale of the sold machine at the successful bid, and is not related to the relocation of the factory (Article 2 of the Criminal Act in the original judgment). Although the victim’s attempt to enter a factory does not fall under the “business” of the crime of interference with business as part of a series of business plan, the lower court found the Defendant’s defense or unlawful act of this case’s defense.

B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the trial of the competent court, the prosecutor applied for the amendment to a bill of amendment of an indictment with the content that “as of September 30, 2013” in paragraph (3) of the facts charged changed from “as of September 30, 2012” to “as of September 30, 2012.” Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the above reasons for reversal are as follows.