All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on obstruction of business, the Defendant was unilaterally assaulted by B, and did not interfere with the restaurant business jointly with B.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment and eight months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The judgment of the court below was rendered to the defendant 1 and 2, and the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal, and this court decided to hold the two appeals together.

The judgment of the court below No. 1 and No. 2 is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court, it will be examined.

B. The crime of interference with judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine does not necessarily require any intention to interfere with the purpose of business interference or planned business interference. It is sufficient to perceive or anticipate the possibility or risk of interfering with another’s business due to one’s act, and such recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also conclusive, but also an uncertain intent is recognized as willful negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4141, May 24, 2012). According to the court below and the court below’s duly adopted and the evidence duly adopted and examined, the Defendant was found to have caused a fighting, such as exposing a boiler by exposing his body, and fighting.

Since then, the defendant was unilaterally assaulted by B in the course of ethic fighting

Even if there is a possibility that the defendant will interfere with the restaurant business due to the trial expenses and fighting with B.