The court below proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant interfered with the business of selling booms of the injured party by speaking as stated in the facts charged of this case.

It is difficult to see otherwise, on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the judgment of the first instance that convicted the defendant, and sentenced the defendant not guilty.

In light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the trial-oriented principle, the trial-oriented principle, and the trial-oriented principle, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.