The judgment of the court below is reversed.

In two months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime against victim D among the crimes of victim No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Article 1-1(a) of the facts stated in the judgment of the court below) the Defendant, as a result of having been sentenced to a punishment as stated in the previous records in the judgment of the court below, asked the FF to assist in the settlement of credit cards, and requested the FF to do so, and the Defendant did not voluntarily assist the settlement of credit cards.

(B) The crime No. 1-B of the original judgment) Defendant heard the internal question of the National Police Agency against the Incheon Airport Call Dog executives and raised funds to cope with this, and E voluntarily prepared three million won, not the Defendant’s attack.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime against the victim Eul among the first-A of the original decision in the original judgment, the crime against the victim E among the first-A of the original decision in the original judgment, the first-B and the second-year imprisonment with prison labor for the crime) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the lower court’s judgment on the erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles were duly adopted and the evidence duly examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant took verbal abuse and assault from the time when he works as an article at Kimpo-public port, and took place as a head of the same article. From 2001 to the point of view, in conducting call boom business against travelers near the Incheon International Airport passenger terminal, the Defendant’s ability to conduct call boom, and in the event other articles were found to act as a guest by allocating the call bareboat officers’ host place and time, it was unreasonable for them to force; ② the Defendant interfered with the business by taking advantage of the other people’s great voice to protect; ③ the victims of the call bareboats using their groups.