The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The information on the accused shall be disclosed for a period of two years and

On October 15, 2015, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charge of interfering with the business of the victim X, although the Defendant did not interfere with the above victim’s business affairs.

In spite of the fact that the Defendant was forced to commit an indecent act, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the indecent act.

The sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of disclosure order and notification order, 40 hours of order) against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Before making a judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, each crime in the judgment of the court below is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, although the punishment for concurrent crimes is determined within the scope of the aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the court below erred by omitting aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

On October 15, 2015, the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake on the following circumstances, i.e., the witness X duly adopted and consistently stated the defendant's act in detail and with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and there is a fact that the defendant had been sent to the above restaurant at the police investigation at the above day and gave a bath.

In light of the fact that the defendant stated, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant interferes with business as stated in the facts charged in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's argument on this part cannot be accepted.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant is guilty.