The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the interference with the business of the defendant (the defendant) and the attempted conflict, the defendant did not interfere with the business of the victims, who are employees of the Dispute Settlement Co., Ltd, or did not interfere with the victim Co., Ltd. and did not intend to interfere with the business and to interfere with the business.

B. As to the misapprehension of legal principles (defendants)’s obstruction of business, threat, and attempted threat, each act of the Defendant in this part of the facts charged constitutes a justifiable act.

(c)

The defendant asserts that the punishment of the court below (the defendant and the prosecutor) is too unreasonable because the sentence of the court below (the 10-month imprisonment, the 2-year suspension of execution, the observation of protection, the community service work 160 hours) is too unfluent.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The prosecutor applied for amendments to Bill of Indictment with the content of partial change of interference with duties and conflict among the previous facts charged for the trial. Since the same is changed by the court's permission, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the defendant intentionally obstructed the work of the victims, who are employees of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd, as stated in each part of the facts charged, and caused the victims to join the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and that the judgment of the court below was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the defendant,

subsection (b) of this section.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same as the above in the trial at the lower court, and the lower court duly admitted and investigated the evidence.