The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding misunderstanding (limited to the case of 2017 High Order 1904) found the Defendant on August 30, 2017 “D” operated by the Victim F on August 30, 2017, and the reason was that the Defendant intended to impose an apology on the acts of interference with the past business.

Nevertheless, the victim was able to obstruct the business of another time, thereby breaking out the door, taking the photograph of the defendant, and reported it to the police, and in this process, the defendant was found to have locked the door and affixed a photograph.

“A claim was made” and only the claim was made.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the above charged part because the damaged person did not go to the door of his store and did not interfere with the victim F's business by force. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of all the circumstances, including the fact that the court below made an agreement with the unfair victims of sentencing, the punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the victim immediately after the crime committed on August 30, 2017:

9. 2. In the police investigation, the Defendant specifically stated the content of the damage that “the Defendant committed an act of harming the store’s business by finding in a low-scar shop under the influence of alcohol and taking a bath while doing so, and by doing an act of singing a locked door, singing a voice, and singing a heavy hinging and hinginginging off, and interfering with the store’s business.” The preceding day is the same.

9.1. The Defendant prepared a letter to the effect that “If the above case occurs again, the Defendant will leave the other place.” On the other hand, while submitting a written agreement at the time of investigation, the Defendant’s statement is credibility in light of the fact that the Defendant made a minor statement about the Defendant’s crime.