Of the lower judgment, the part of the lower judgment’s conviction, and around 04:56 of April 5, 2015, and interference with business operations around 14:00 of April 6, 2015.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of each court below (the first instance court: the fine of KRW 4 million; the fine of KRW 2: the fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (the first instance judgment) 1) Inasmuch as the Defendant misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant intrudes into the telecom room, did not pay accommodation charges, or did not pay accommodation charges, and went back to the guest room and returned to the room, it can be deemed that the Defendant’s act of uneasying the guests by abusing the victim’s free will and causing confusion with the victim’s free will, it constitutes “power” of interference with business.

However, the court below held that the defendant exercised his power.

lack of evidence to see

On the other hand, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as it rendered a judgment of not guilty as to each of the interference of business as of April 5, 2015 and interference of business around April 6, 2015 among the facts charged in the instant case.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of four million won) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment below ex officio, and the court decided to hold the appeal jointly. The guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance and each of the crimes of the judgment of the court of second instance must be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the above guilty part cannot be maintained.

In addition, each of the previous facts charged on April 5, 2015, on which the first instance court rendered a verdict of not guilty, among the facts charged in the instant case, as of April 5, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, as of interference with business operations around 04:56, and around 14:00 on April 6, 2015, the prosecutor added the charges as preliminary charge under Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act as the name of the conjunctive crime, and Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act as the preliminary application of the Act.