All the judgment below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below, misunderstanding of legal principles) declared not guilty of the obstruction part of the facts charged in the instant case to the purport that H and F’s statement is below credibility as a professional statement, and that H and F’s statement cannot be trusted in light of the J’s legal testimony at the court below. However, H and F’s statement is considerably high credibility, and J consistently made at the investigative agency, but the court below stated that there was some error in interpretation on the wind of interpreting Indonesia J in English at the court below, but not only I but also J made a statement consistent with the above facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the charge of obstruction of business, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant (an unreasonable sentencing on the guilty portion of the judgment of the lower court)’s sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. On December 23, 2013, the summary of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below revealed that the Defendant visited Indonesia as the major shareholder of the victim company E, Inc., a major shareholder of the victim company, at the office of the victim company D (hereinafter “victim company”) in Indonesia (hereinafter “the victim company”) around December 23, 2013, he interfered with the affairs concerning the operation of the information and communications-related business of the victim company by spreading a false statement to the local employees of the victim company, stating that “E head office is resigned and cash is secured after he sold the Indones branch office, and the Indonesia branch office is sold, and thus, indonesia, the Defendant should receive resignation from the local employees of Indonesia

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant resigned from the headquarters to the local employees of the victim company.