A. As to the facts charged of interference with the mistake of facts, the Defendants did not exercise their authority, despite the fact that there was a somewhat high level of speech by following the employee’s mistake in the restaurant operated by the victim D.

In relation to the facts charged of insult, Defendant A had expressed a prudent desire to do so as to do so, but there is no direct desire for the victim G.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the interference with business and insult guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of one million won, Defendant B: a fine of three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the obstruction of business, the Defendants may recognize the fact that the Defendants interfered with the restaurant business of the victim D. Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is not accepted. ① The Defendants resisted the employees on the ground that the Defendants ordered a soup at the restaurant operated by the victim D, and that the soup took place, and that it led to a serious disturbance. ② The victim D made a statement at the investigative agency and the lower court in the investigative agency and the lower court, stating, “The Defendants made an insulting speech and the inconvenience of the surrounding customers, and reported it to the police.” The Defendant’s voice stated, “The Defendants continued to have slickly made a claim that the surrounding customers might be sleep” (Evidence 20 pages of evidence record, trial records, 54, 58 pages), and the employees of the above restaurant at the time, “h were slick in the court of the lower court’s appearance,” and made the Defendant’s statement as the victim’s oral statement.