The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not extract keys to the vehicle or instigate its employees, and the delivery work was performed normally, and there is no fact that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s work, and there is no fact that the work was interfered with.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, especially the witness K, L's statements in each court below's judgment and each police's statement on K and L, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the defendant's factory operation by force by failing to work for employees including one-time workers who work for press machinery, etc., and preventing transportation by extracting the key of fork's vehicle, and the defendant's statement in the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the trial of Q against this point is not reliable. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, although the Defendant had a record of being sentenced to a fine several times for a crime of this kind, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes by setting up against the Defendant who did not resolve the overdue wages as promised by the victim and there exist grounds for consideration in the circumstances. The thief crime is committed an attempted crime, and in light of the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, health, environment, circumstances of the crime, means and consequence, and all of the sentencing conditions stated in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, health, circumstances of the crime, means and consequence, etc., the lower court’s punishment is somewhat excessive.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is reasonable in terms of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.