The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Paragraphs 3 and 5-B of the decision of the court below of mistake of facts

With regard to the interference with each of the duties at the “I convenience store” as indicated in paragraphs (1) and (6), the Defendant only resisted the employees’ influories to the said convenience store or the point of occupation, and did not interfere with his duties by abusiveation or intimidation, as described in each of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion and recognized the Defendant guilty of all the charges, thereby misunderstanding the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant was indicted as a charge of obstruction of business on May 31, 2019 and assault (Jansan District Court 2019Da2249) and appealed the part concerning assault on October 16 of the same year by being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 8 months and obstruction of business (on April 11, 2019), but the Defendant appealed (Jansan District Court 2019No3504), on the ground that the submission of the grounds for appeal was not made, and on February 12, 2020, the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive on February 25, 2020.

The crime of interference with business in which the judgment of the court below and the above crime of interference with business against the defendant became final and conclusive shall be sentenced to punishment for each crime of the judgment of the court below in consideration of equity and the case of concurrent crimes in accordance with the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to each crime of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act

However, despite such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, so it is different from this.

B. The Defendant made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake.

The lower court did not err in this part.