The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to illegally collected evidence, which the court below found as guilty by misunderstanding of legal principles, is not admissible as evidence since the CCTV screen photographs obtained as evidence of guilt were illegally collected and provided in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

B) On June 28, 2012, the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion) does not mean that the parking lot of the instant project team does not constitute “a summary” of the building or structure in the crime of intrusion upon residence. Moreover, the Defendant, C, etc. did not voluntarily enter the Jeju Naval Base Work Agency, nor did they have any intention to intrude into the structure. Furthermore, the Defendant’s act was a legitimate act to resist the obstruction of installation of the temporary stage. C) on August 11, 2012, 2012, with P, etc., and the Defendant did not interfere with the flow of the vehicle by leaving or sitting in the entrance of the project team with P, etc., and there was no fact that the Defendant did not interfere with the flow of the vehicle.

In addition, S’s restraint act was an illegal public duty that did not meet the requirements under the latter part of Article 6(1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and thus, even if the Defendant inflicted an injury upon S’s arms, it constitutes a justifiable act. D) The remaining interference with the business is merely a part of the Defendant’s participation in the U.S., and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an intention to interfere with the business or exercised the “defence” under the crime of interference with business. The other party to the exercise of power is the driver of the ready-mixed vehicle or its affiliated company, and it is not the rate of interference with the business of Samsung T&T and T&T industry. Furthermore, since the Defendant’s above act was a part of the religious event, it constitutes a justifiable act. 2) The sentencing of the lower court of unfair sentencing (one

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. mistake of facts by the defendant.