A. Regarding the fact of interference with the business of March 31, 2019, the Defendant’s act did not constitute a force of interference with business, and there was no duty to interfere with the Defendant’s act since it did not have been any guest due to almost the time the singing room business was completed at the time of the instant case. (ii) As to the interference with the business of April 1, 2019, there was no fact that the Defendant made the words as indicated in the facts charged.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court found all of the facts charged of this case guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unreasonable to maintain the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s decision on the grounds that the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s decision (Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part by the lower court, and the lower court alleged in the summary of evidence.