A. In fact, the Defendant did not interfere with a large amount of 30 minutes, such as gathering chairss from a restaurant operated by the victimized person and gathering the water reservoir and water reservoir on the floor.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of obstruction of business is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, including the victim, the police statement in E, the Defendant’s legal statement in the lower court, as well as the evidence duly admitted and examined as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that 30-minutes were raised by the victim, such as gathering the chairs in the restaurant operated by the victim, and gathering the water reservoir and water reservoir on the bottom.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

B. The fact that the victim’s withdrawal of the complaint, the criminal records exceeding the fine, or the criminal records of the same kind, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant does not seem to be a seriously reflective figure, the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, considering the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.