All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and a fine of KRW 5,00,000.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) The Defendant of the first instance court did not interfere with the O’s business activities, such as the facts charged in the first instance trial. 2) The Defendant of the second instance court [2014dan8650] did not interfere with business as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table 1 of the facts charged, or did not intrude into G’s residence as described in paragraph (2). In addition, the Defendant did not commit an indecent act or indecent act as described in the facts charged [207].

B. The lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment and 80 hours’ order for sexual assault treatment programs) of the second instance court is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the defendant appealed against the judgment below, and the court decided to concurrently examine each of the above appeals cases.

However, since each of the crimes in the decision of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a single sentence should be sentenced within the scope of a limited term of punishment under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, so it will be examined.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court that interfered with the victimO’s business operations on September 11, 2014, namely, ① the victimO demanded by an investigative agency to pay money to the Defendant to leave at the publicly announced tele on September 2, 2014, and caused trouble to business by going through the publicly notified telecom route while the Defendant got a large voice, and made a detailed statement about the situation at the time, ② the Defendant recognized the facts of the crime in the court below, and the Defendant was false.