We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) Joint assault: The Defendant did not assault the victim E on May 30, 2014, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The obstruction of business: The victim first assaulted the defendant and franchis by assaulting the defendant, and the decision of the court below that recognized the obstruction of the defendant's business even though the defendant did not interfere with his business, the court below erred by mistake of facts.

3) Unsatisfy: The judgment of the court below was erroneous in finding the defendant's non-satisfy despite the victim's assaulting the defendant by taking the defendant's two arms and pushing the defendant.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the first instance judgment: the fine of KRW 1,00,00, the second instance judgment: the imprisonment of KRW 6 months, the suspended sentence of two years) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The victim E’s statement and CCTV screen data are admissible as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case.

After the instant case, the victim stated from the investigative agency to this court that “the Defendant and C assaulted the victim within the F cafeteria around 17:00 on May 30, 2014, and assaulted the victim out of the said cafeteria.”

The statements of the victim are specific and consistent, and have been installed outside the above restaurant;

The video recorded in CCTV also conforms to the statements of the victim, so credibility of the victim's statement is recognized.

Therefore, since the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of assaulting the victim jointly with C as stated in the facts of crime in the judgment of the court of first instance, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s obstruction of business: (a) the Defendant sought the victim’s desire on February 14, 2015 at the shop operated by the victim; and (b) the Defendant’s husband P, who received the victim’s telephone, prevents the Defendant from disturbing the disturbance.