A. Although there was a fact that two vehicles were parked at the entrance of the victim's restaurant, such as a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, there was no intention to interfere with the work of the victims.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case at the lower court, on the grounds of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant's act, as stated in the judgment of the court below, appears to be an act of interfering with the victim's restaurant operation or at least a risk of interfering with business affairs, and the defendant also committed the above act, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined: (a) the defendant's act of parking considerably restricted the victim's access to the restaurant at the entrance of the victim; (b) the situation continues to exist for a long time; and (c) if the defendant spreads around the restaurant, it appears that the restaurant customer would have caused considerable inconvenience to the restaurant; and (d) the defendant, despite the victim's resistance or the police control, continued the above act.

The court below asserted that the two vehicles of this case were parked in front of the entrance of the victim's restaurant, even though there is sufficient space to park immediately next to the defendant's office, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and according to the image of the photograph taken by the defendant at the scene of this case, and that the defendant could not move from the two vehicles of this case due to lack of oil. However, the defendant was the police officer.