A. The Defendant asserting the misunderstanding of facts is merely a fact that there was a high arbitrity in the process of a dispute with the victim, and the Defendant and the victim’s cross-argument did not constitute a crime of interference with business given that it was more than two times after the end of the business.

B. The sentence (700,000 won) that the court below rendered by the court below for the wrongful argument of sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant is recognized as having obstructed the operation of the restaurant operated by the victimized person, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment.

(1) The defendant stated in the original court that he acknowledges the facts charged.

② At the time of the instant case, the victim made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that he/she went to the restaurant by leaving the Defendant’s seat at the time of the instant case. In full view of the fact that the victim’s statement concerning the details and details of the instant crime is specific and natural, and that the Defendant also recognized the fact that the victim and the victim consulted at the restaurant operated by the victimized person up to the trial of the party, the content of the victim’s statement is credibility.

B. The time when the defendant obstructed the business of the victim in determining the unfair argument of sentencing is the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant appears to have relatively less than the damage of the victim due to the obstruction of business due to the new wall time zone with relatively small customers.

However, the Defendant had had been sentenced to a fine twice as a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act even before, and the lower court denied the instant facts charged and did not appear to have an attitude of reflection. Otherwise, the Defendant’s character and conduct, family environment, motive and background of the offense, and the means and consequence of the offense.