A. The Defendant had intention to interfere with the business of the Defendant merely because he attempted to leave the door by wrapping up his opinion with the victim D because he did not fit his opinion with the victim D, but the victim made a verbal fighting while talking about the Defendant.

No person may be deemed to have interfered with the victim's business by force or by force.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles was identical in the lower court.

The court below rejected the assertion by stating the decision in detail.

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the following facts or circumstances are recognized:

① The first police officer appears to have been staying in the instant site at around 20:28, while G at the time was called up to 20:59, G testified that the Defendant and the victim were given a great voice even when the police officer was present.

A police officer testified that the victim and the defendant were h's desire to take the defendant into a multi-faceted body when called the second police officer around 22:34.

In light of the above, the statement of the victim that the defendant continued to sculp the victim's abusiveism while going against the time stated in the facts charged is highly reliable.

② The Defendant and the Victim argued that the Defendant and the Victim were arguinged of noise, that he could not speak fighting for more than two hours, and that he was unable to do so, and that he did so by hand, at around 21:30, he did so, and that he did so by hand, and that he had them exceeded some parts of the equipment, such as water purifiers in the vicinity.

At the time, even if the defendant did not directly exercise the victim's tangible power, he or she will take a bath for a long time so that adults can not easily speak.