The judgment of the court below is reversed.

As to the crimes of No. 1, 2, and 3 in the judgment of the defendant, one year of imprisonment, and four crimes in the judgment of the court.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. Fact-finding misunderstanding (related to interference with business in the group 2215, group 2015) the Defendant only told employees S and Q from the “R main shop” on April 5, 2015 that the Defendant attempted to exercise his/her power by putting the Defendant’s day to the head of S and Q, and did not interfere with the Defendant’s business by exercising his/her power, along with the foregoing day.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against an unfair defendant in sentencing (crimes 1, 2, and 3 in its holding: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and 6 months, and crimes 4 in its holding: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and crimes 5 in its holding): Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant alleged to the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts. According to the testimony of Q and S, the lower court can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant interfered with the business of Q Q as well as the daily conduct of the Defendant.

The defendant's assertion is rejected and the defendant was convicted of obstruction of business among the facts charged in this case.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no illegality of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant.

A) Q from the investigative agency to the court of the court below’s trial, “An employee S must go to the studio outside the studio where the Defendant is running,” and Q is seeking the head of the office while putting a bath on the ground that he verified his identification card with the Defendant.

It was put up on the studio in which the Defendant is running, and the Defendant’s daily activity spits the spite into the floor and the face, and interfered with the main business.

In this process, there is no fact that the defendant prevented him from driving.

The purport of “..........”