The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing (unfair sentencing) of the lower court (700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (the point of interference with the business among the facts charged of this case) continuously obstructed the performance of duties as a pastor of D church (hereinafter “instant church”) recorded in the facts charged of victim G even before the instant case, and thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant church is a member of a non-corporate association having the right to benefit from the lawful use of the property of the Defendant church.

As part of the continuous obstruction of business as seen above, the Defendant closed the front door for towing, which constitutes an act of interference with business which needs to be punished.

In addition, at the time of the instant case, the victims and the members of the victim had carried the worship on the first floor of the church building of this case.

Even if the victim could not be deemed to have explicitly waived the right to worship in the second floor show room, the victim given up the right to manage the second floor show room and the potential possibility of worship.

It is also difficult to see it.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The unfair sentencing sentence of the lower court is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination (Omission of a decision of dismissal of a public prosecution). Where an application for changes in indictment is filed by a prosecutor who withdraws all the facts charged, among several concurrent facts charged, and the purport of revoking a part of the indictment is clear, if this does not correspond to an application for revocation of a public prosecution, it shall be deemed revocation of the public prosecution and dismissed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do67, Mar. 22, 1988). According to the records, on June 12, 2015, the prosecutor filed an application for changes in indictment, such as: (a) excluding the facts pertaining to the destruction of re-property at the 3rd public trial date of the lower public trial on June 12, 2015.