The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. fine of 1.5 million won.

The summary of the grounds for appeal No. 1: Defendant A’s mistake of facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles of Defendant A’s assertion of sentencing, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute a threat of force.

In addition, there was no criminal intent to obstruct one defendant's business.

Two persons who were in the restaurant at the time wanted to the defendant, and the defendant's desire to commit violence is judged to be against the defendant's desire by using violence, and the defendant mispercing the food board he he he he stored in the cafeteria at the time.

The victim I voluntarily kidd the defendant on his own on the day of another person with the defendant, and kiddd the defendant, and kidd the defendant, and the defendant was punished for a short time of five minutes while moving the defendant to another place of promise. The defendant's act should be dismissed as a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms.

In addition, the Defendant argued that the submission of the evidence to the Defendant is an abuse of public prosecution right, and the submission of the prosecutor’s evidence such as the police statement violates the Criminal Procedure Act, thus not admissible, and the date, time, place, etc. indicated in the facts charged are different in detail from the actual ones.

Defendant

A The sentence of the lower court (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable to argue that the sentencing of A is unfair.

The lower court’s judgment: The Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts and the statement of the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles (hereinafter referred to as “instant statement”) cannot be said to be insulting compared to the acts performed by F against the Defendants at the time.

F without disclosing who is himself, the Defendants are not engaged in business other than business hours.

In other words, it shall be the end of the year.