The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In fact, the Defendant did not have access to the construction site of processing facilities by the victim G farming association corporation (hereinafter “victim corporation”) at the end of the franchising process construction (hereinafter “instant construction”). There was no fact that the Defendant used force, such as franchising at the construction site of the instant construction project.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, or misunderstanding the legal principles, stated the grounds for appeal by attending the court on the date of trial, but the defendant stated the grounds for appeal as the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal submitted on July 9, 2020, as stated in the grounds for appeal. In light of the specific contents of the statement of grounds for appeal and arguments, the defendant's act cannot be seen as an exercise of "defluence" as referred to in the crime of interference with business, and thus, the argument of misapprehension of legal principles is

There is an error.

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

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the representative of C Group and B, the secretary general of D Group.

around 2015 and 2016, 65 members of the E Village F Construction Support Residents were to contribute to the establishment of the victim corporation by investing the joint project expenses paid under the Act on the Compensation and Support for Areas Adjacent to Transmission and Change Facilities, and then to build the Majet processing facilities from March 2017 to June 2017, and receive subsidies and project subsidies from the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. The victim corporation entered into a contract for construction works with H on June 19, 2017 and continued the instant construction works at I and J.

The Defendant and B, on October 22, 2018, from around 08:50 to 09:50 on the same day, were the third steel pole of H in the construction site of this case.