The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to ask the victim to withdraw the completion inspection, the Defendant was found to find it in the childcare center operated by the victim with A. However, there was no interference with the operation of the childcare center due to abusiveism or bad behavior. Since the originals of the childcare center at that time were at the end of all, there was no intention to commit the crime of interference with business because they did not intend to commit the crime of interference with the business.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court of the court below consistently stated the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) victim G, witness M, and N have expressed the victim’s desire through a large voice from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below; (ii) the victim G, witness M, and N have taken the victim’s desire; and (iii) the Defendant has no actual result of interfering with business; and (iv) the Defendant did not interfere with the operation of the child care center at the time of the instant case; and (iii) the Defendant could sufficiently remain in the operation of the child care center as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) there is no other circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement; (b) there is no other circumstance to suspect the victim’s motive to find the victim; and (b) there is a high probability that the Defendant had been a conflict of interest with the victim; and (b) the crime of interference with business was sufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s desire to operate the child care center as stated in the instant case.