The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 is classified as the [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and 3 of [Attachment 1] of the judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the obstruction of duties and the crime of intimidation, Defendant 1 did not interfere with the work by finding the Defendant at F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F FF and I, and did not have such intention.

There is no money received from the victim E or H.

At the time, the source of origin was illegal, and thus, it is not a duty of protection.

B) In relation to the crime of retaliation and coercion, the Defendant did not have threatened the victim H.

The defendant did not receive a written confirmation by threatening the victim E, but by E.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an offence of interference with each business set forth in [Attachment No. 1] No. 1 and No. 3 and each offence of conflict: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, one year of suspended execution, and one year of suspended execution: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence of the court below by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below 1) It is acknowledged that the defendant committed each crime under the judgment of the court below in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.

The decision was determined.

A) During three times of investigation at the police, E stated that “The Defendant: (a) sought to find the F F F F F reporters each day, expressed that he interfered with the work, such as bringing a brut to customers, and fright; and (b) he/she must return to money only if he/she must give money without choice.”

B) Although “E has made a false statement at an investigative agency due to the failure of the defendant,” in the court of the court below, it reversed the statement to the investigative agency. However, “E has consistently and specifically stated the contents of the instant crime in the investigative agency, and has stated the contents disadvantageous to oneself, ② Each investigation report (as to attachment of photographs that the victim spawned from the original body, witness of A, and witness who wishes to be punished.