All judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the judgment of the court below of first instance, the defendant 1 did not harm the victim AG and did not assault the victim AJ as set forth in Paragraph 1 of the judgment, and there was no interference with the victim's business operation as set forth in Paragraph 2 of the judgment, and as set forth in Paragraph 3 of the judgment, no threat was made to the victim AJ as set forth in Paragraph 4 of the judgment, and no accusation was made for the purpose of having the AJ receive criminal punishment as set forth in Paragraph 4 of the judgment.

B) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though there was no active proof as to the Defendant’s accusation as to the crime of false accusation under Article 4 of the judgment of misunderstanding of legal doctrine.

C) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) against the illegal defendant is too unreasonable.

2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. As to the judgment of the court below of the second instance, the Defendant did not have any intention to intrude another person’s residence, since the Defendant was aware that the victim D had already withdrawn, as to Article 23(1) of the judgment of the court below of the second instance.

(2) As to Paragraph (2) of the Decision 2018 High 23 cases, the Defendant did not sleep the flower and wooden craft goods.

(3) As to the No. 4 of the Decision 2018 High 23 cases, the Defendant thought that the head of the facility would move to park at the time of withdrawal of the facility, and there was no intention to fire the facility for public use.

(4) As to the No. 5 of the Decision 2018 High 23 cases, the Defendant did not take a bath, but did not take a mixed-form language, and was sold to the effect that the public official did not assault the public official, but rather did not make the misunderstanding.

(5) As to Paragraph (1) of the Decision 2018 Gohap 41, the Defendant did not have committed any act as stated in this part.

(6) As to Article 2 of the judgment of the 2018 High 41 case, the Defendant’s mobile phone on the floor is on the floor of the victim L.