All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding (Defendant B), although the Defendant was involved in the act of driving a car truck by the defendant A, the lower court which recognized the crime of interference with another’s exercise of rights is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A) imposed by the lower court (hereinafter “fine 1,00,000”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) Defendant B paid all the repair cost of the instant truck to the victim on or around March 9, 201; (ii) it appears to have been sufficiently aware that the dispute over the repair cost of the instant truck continues to exist at the time of the instant case; (iii) Defendant A was at the police station: (a) he was able to take the crybbb, along with Defendant B at the time of the instant case, and moved the cry to the car truck at the scene of the crime; (b) he was driven by Defendant B; and (c) Defendant B stated that he was waiting to move to the cryb, while he was performing the replacement work; and (d) Defendant B also stated that Defendant B was also waiting to move to the cryb, Defendant B’s police station, and Defendant A on the cryb.

In full view of the following facts: (a) Defendant B and Defendant B are operating the company together with the husband; (b) Defendant B are operating the company; and (c) Defendant B is claiming that Defendant B was aware that there was a dispute over repair costs with the victim in light of their relations, it is difficult to believe that it was difficult to believe that Defendant B would have settled the dispute over repair costs. In full view of the above, Defendant B is co-owned for the crime of this case.