The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The convenience point where mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles was argued, there was a minor dispute, but there was neither the Defendant nor the customer.

The defendant's act at the convenience store at the time constitutes a force, which is an element of the crime of interference with business.

Therefore, among each crime of the judgment below, the part that the defendant interfered with the convenience store business is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Before the prosecutor's judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal due to the amendment of the indictment, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that the part of the charges concerning the victim E, among the facts charged in the instant case, was modified in the trial, and this court permitted this part. Furthermore, this part of the charges was recognized as a single crime, and the judgment of the court below that sentenced one punishment by applying the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act to the whole facts charged in the instant case, including the remaining facts charged, could no longer be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of such argument.

3. The “comforcing force” in the crime of interference with business regarding the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles refers to any force capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will, either tangible or intangible, and as such, it includes not only violence and intimidation, but also social, economic and political status and pressure based on royalty, etc., and in reality it does not require a suppression of the victim’s free will. However, it refers to a force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc.