The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of special larceny is acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, as stated in the judgment below, C-3

B. (2) At the time, at the same time, at a place where the crime of interference with the business was committed, he participated in the crime as a joint principal offender on the ground that he was committed in a way to do so outside the dominium at the time of the crime of interference with the business

No. 3 of the holding of the court below

C. At the time and place of entry, the thief was outside of the main place at the time of preventing the theft crime, as stated in its reasoning, and was in a cooperative relationship with C at a time and place.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. Since 10 years ago, the Defendant had been receiving medical treatment with respect to alcohol, and was in a physical and mental state under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, No. 3 of the decision of the court below

B. (2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the obstruction of the business of the victim P, the fact that the victim P reported to the police the fact that "two male persons request money from alcohol" at the time (the Incheon District Court Decision 2015No. 6675 decided 104 decided on the evidence records of the case No. 2015 decided 6675 decided the above victim), and the victim stated to the effect that "the person who has a photograph attached to the photograph is a person who has affixed the above pedal" after reading the photograph of the defendant and C (the above evidence records No. 100). Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant and C can be sufficiently recognized that the crime of interference with the business of this part was committed with the agreement of implied intent at the boarding of the above victim operated by the above victim. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) Article 3-3 of the holding of the court below.

A) This part of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged is as follows: “A joint with the Defendant and C, and at around May 2, 2015, the main points operated by the victim T in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City around 21:39, the victim is the victim.