A. Although there is a friendly fact that the defendant of mistake of facts is resisting to the employee's inequality at the time and place of the decision of the court below, it does not interfere with the victim's business by force while putting a obscing the employee's desire like the facts

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

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

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant interfered with the victim's main business by force, such as having the main points operated by the victim C while under the influence of alcohol and harming other customers by putting the victim C’s abusive language. Thus, the defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. In full view of the following: (a) review of the argument on unfair sentencing; (b) the Defendant did not appear to deny and reflect the Defendant’s act; (c) there are many criminal records against the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant did not agree with the victim; and (c) the Defendant’s age, career, character and conduct, environment; (d) the background and method of the instant crime; and (e) the method and method of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, it is clear that the facts of the lower judgment’s crime “as of January 4, 2015,” “as of January 23:30, 2015,” “as of January 4, 2016:30,” correction is made pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.