A. The witness J of the lower court found the Defendant guilty of interference with the business of the Defendant by misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning interference with the business) by misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning interference with the business) as the Defendant’s act committed by C, and putting the disturbance in the restaurant is C, and the Defendant was seated only on the table, but did not interfere with the restaurant business.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the date of the occurrence of the case, the court below stated that the victim E, a restaurant business owner, clearly divided the son and the defendant into the son and the defendant and the person who did not use the son and the son and the defendant, and stated that the son did not use the son and the son, and that the son did not take a bath to her, and did so. In the court of the court of the court below, the court of the court below stated that "the Handphone from the defendant, was able to inform the son of the location of the cafeteria, and the cell phone was set up, and the defendant took a cell phone." The defendant made a sudden bath, and the victim E, a restaurant business owner, was the victim of the cafeteria and the defendant Eul, who did not wear the son and the defendant Eul on the day of the occurrence of the case, and the two persons did not take a bath with a large volume of sound, and the defendant did not have an intention to do so. In full view of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below's determination of the crime of interference of business is justified.

B. We examine the argument of unfair sentencing, and the Defendant’s change from the investigative agency to the trial court, even if the Defendant’s criminal facts are clearly acknowledged through the evidence.