The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding [2015 senior group 648] In relation to the case of interference with business affairs, the Defendant did not make a statement to the victim D, such as “the Defendant has compliedd with this year’s width,” and there was no assault by threatening the above victim in relation to the crime of injury to the victim P among the case [2015 senior group 1552]

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the court below, "A violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.)" in the name of the crime in the case No. 1491 case was tried by the prosecutor, and "A violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.)" was "1. Special Intimidation" in the facts charged, "Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.)" in the case No. 1552 case, "A violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.)" in the name of the crime in the case No. 1491 case, "1. Special Intimidation" in the facts charged, "No more than 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.)" was ordered to be amended, and the remaining criminal facts of this case cannot be revised.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to a trial by this court, and this is examined in the following 3.3.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the victim D.