The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, on February 29, 2012, the provision prohibiting the transfer of custody members and the attraction of business employees of the funeral hall leader in the funeral hall prescribed in the employment contract as of February 29, 2012 does not have effect on the Defendant, and even though the Defendant permitted F to enter the funeral and did not hand over the members detained by the Defendant to F, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant's ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by authority, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a period of six months as of April 20, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 10 of the same year after being sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on April 20, 2016. Since the criminal facts of this case were in the concurrent relationship between the crime of interference with the above business for which punishment became final and conclusive and the crime of this case after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment below

3. The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to a trial by this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority as to the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts.

A. The instant facts charged are effective on February 29, 2012. 1) The victim company’s act of transferring the members in the event room to the business operator or converting the members in collusion with the business operator, and the business operator’s act of attracting the members in the funeral hall was prohibited. As such, the victim company’s prior team leader of the victim company’s company, as the head of the funeral hall held by the defendant, transferred the members detained on the basis of the number of persons generated in the event of the funeral hall held by the defendant, or the members detained on the basis of the number of persons generated in the event of the funeral hall held by the defendant, to the business operator, and