The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts regarding ① Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act against Occupational Authority, etc.), the Defendant only gave the victim the ship and did not commit an indecent act against the victim. ② With respect to interference with business, the person who led the suspension of the operation of a vehicle is G and J, and the Defendant only divided the transport cost at the time and did not lead the suspension of operation. ③ As to interference with the operation of a vehicle, the Defendant was introduced with the G to report the advertisement made by I and to sell the cargo vehicle by telephone, and the Defendant was provided with the G to check whether the relationship with the I president was maintained, and paid the price of the vehicle to G after confirming whether the vehicle was directly exchanged with H, which is the president, and thereafter, the Defendant did not have been accused of the fact that the Defendant was guilty of each of the facts charged in this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that each of the facts charged in this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, including the witness E’s legal statement of the lower court on the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act on the Law of the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes) and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, who was working as the director general of the DNA editing bureau, has harmed the victim who was working as a DNA trainee at the time and place of the judgment, and used the part around the buckbuck and the

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no error of law.

(b).