The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to receive the return of the remaining lease money that was not returned from the injured party, the Defendant misunderstanding the legal doctrine (as to the obstruction of business operation), or attached it on the window of the above office in the name of the certified broker office in the operation of the victim, or attached it. However, such an act by the Defendant does not constitute “power” as referred to in the crime of interference with business.

B. Around January 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) cited the clicket stating “F Doldoldoldol” in front of the victimized person’s office; and (b) did not say that the F Doldoldoldoldoldol was “F Doldoldol” or sounded to the effect that the F Doldoldol’s office did not refund the deposit money.

The Defendant, through the first statement of the reasons for appeal, argued that he did not have intention to defame with the above allegations, but the Defendant stated that he was aware of defamation on the first trial date.

However, among the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s assertion that the F Authorized Broker’s office stated that “F Authorized Broker’s office was a malicious real estate broker who does not refund security deposit or sound is related to the obstruction of business.” Since the Defendant continues to dispute to the effect that there was no such expressions as above on this part, the Defendant’s assertion should be cited as above.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (2 million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle on obstruction of business

A. On August 3, 2011, the Defendant leased the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000,000 from D as a broker of the victim C (the age of KRW 56) in Suwon-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Suwon-gu B lending of KRW 303 on August 3, 201. However, upon termination of the said lease agreement, the Defendant was only refunded KRW 10,000,000,000,000, which was deducted from D’s monthly rent of KRW 8,000,000 from the unpaid monthly rent of KRW 26,00.