The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part of the obstruction of business as indicated in the lower judgment by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s business by force.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for six months and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for four months) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, this Court decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against each judgment of the court below. Each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in entirety.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of the legal principles is still subject to deliberation, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, and the following changes are examined.

3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the victim P’s statement on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, etc., the court below acknowledged that the Defendant, from around May 28, 2017 to around 01:00, 112 reported the Defendant’s desire to the victim P, etc. who manage the said club at the entrance of QN club, and 112 reported the Defendant’s fee, and that the Defendant’s use of the flab, which prevents the Defendant’s access to the said club, and that the Defendant did not interfere with the duties by force. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is just, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The defendant's factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

4. Although the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles is without merit, the judgment of the court below is without merit since there is a ground for reversal ex officio.