A. Error 1) With regard to interference with business, the Defendant did not have avoided disturbance or exercised power for ten minutes in a restaurant, and did not have any intention to interfere with business since he only intended to deliver his opinion to the side of the restaurant. 2) In relation to the injury, the injury suffered by the Victim F was not directly caused by the Defendant’s exercise of force, but was caused in the course of the victim F’s attacking the Defendant, and there was no intention to injure the Defendant.

In addition, the upper part of the victim F is extremely minor and does not constitute a criminal injury.

B. In relation to obstruction of business, the Defendant merely resisted to the extent that it does not violate the social rules on the attitude of a restaurant business operator. As such, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act. 2) In relation to the injury, the Defendant merely committed a brupt and pushed away in the process of plucking, plucking, or resisting his own arms. Thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate act or self-defense.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the argument of mistake of facts, in particular, according to the victim D, F’s statement, and CCTV video recording inside the E-cafeteria, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant interfered with the operation of the victim D’s restaurant by force by taking advantage of the contents and the background of the abusive theory, the background and degree of the Defendant’s use of violence against F, and the time when the Defendant was in a restaurant. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.