A. As to interference with the business of misunderstanding facts, the Defendant only scruged wals with the victim in the process of responding to walscrusation, and did not interfere with the victim's restaurant operation.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: ① the victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, was unable to have the Defendant avoided the disturbance while taking the victim’s restaurant by taking a large voice from the victim’s restaurant, and the Defendant was unable to take a part in the victim’s restaurant, even after the Defendant was faced with a serious voice from the victim’s restaurant to the court of the lower court; ② during the process of taking back wrue, the Defendant was unable to have the Defendant her wrud while taking a wruth; ② E running a wrud in the front place, sent a witness to the effect that the Defendant was unable to enter the restaurant before the restaurant.

In full view of the fact that the above victim’s statement is consistent with the above victim’s statement, and ③ the defendant also stated that the fact that he fightd with I and money was recognized during the investigation process, the defendant interfered with the victim’s business by force, as shown in the facts charged in the instant case, beyond the mere degree of dispute with the victim.

may be appointed by a person.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of obstruction of business is just and acceptable, and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is not accepted.

3. The Defendant has no record of having been punished for the same offense.

On the other hand, the defendant merely causes disturbance in the restaurant of the victimized person, or takes a bath to the injured person.