The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant did not interfere with the work of the victims by force on the part of the victim C and F by carrying away things in order to deprive the Defendant of the place where the Defendant was engaged in ordinary funeral services.

The victims' statements cannot be reliable as those who want to sell goods in the old occupation of this case with Q Q's intent to live in the defendant's occupation of Pyeongtaek-gu, and attempted to sell goods.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2) Even if the Defendant interfered with the victims’ work, the Defendant sold goods on the old occupation of this case for a period of 15 years, and even if the old occupation occurred the exclusive right to use the goods, the victims were deprived of this right and the Defendant committed an act as stated in each of the facts charged, and thus, the illegality is dismissed as it constitutes a self-help act to recover his right to use, a legitimate defense, and a justifiable act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the amount of KRW 800,00,000 and the cost of the lawsuit) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant and the victim C are the persons who d market workers on the street.

On April 19, 2016, from around 09:00 to around 09:20, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s business by force, such as: (a) the fact that the damaged person was at the place where he was at the street of about 15 years in front of Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, for the reason that he was in a new stop, and that he was at the street of about 15 years old; and (b) the victim’s new stop, etc., carried out a new stop, which he was laid off for the street, and carried out a new stop,

On April 19, 2016, the Defendant continued to do so for the same reason at the above place.