All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and unfair sentencing) 1) In relation to the crime committed on September 12, 2015 among the criminal facts stated in the lower judgment [2015 order 1580], the Defendant did not wish at the time to commit a crime, and the Defendant did not wish to commit a crime on September 12, 2015. In relation to the criminal facts on September 12, 2015, at the time, the Defendant did not wish to “only a quid pro quo” and did not take a bath to an elementary school customer.

In addition, the judgment of the court below [2015 High Order 1956] There is no fact that the defendant committed an act as stated in its reasoning in relation to the crime.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months on July 25, 2014 for a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.) in the Western Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court on July 25, 2014, and was sentenced to two years of suspended execution on August 2, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive and conclusive on August 2, 2014.

On September 12, 2015, the Defendant demanded that the victim C’s convenience store located in the Daegu Seo-gu Office B request “300 only .............” The Defendant obstructed the purchase of goods at the convenience store. The Defendant expressed the victim’s desire to “Wel this Chewing baby,” and obstructed the victim’s convenience store operation by force by avoiding the disturbance.

Since then, around 12:40 on the same day, the Defendant sought again to the above convenience store, and reported the victim's interference with the duties under the preceding paragraph to the police, and thus, reported the victim "I am Chewing. I am. I am.

only 10,000.

The term “for example, as well as a ppuri,” and the term “for example,” to the customers of elementary school students at the above convenience store, the term “for example,” and “for example, n.e., the term “fore” was reported.

“The threat.”