On the other hand, the defendant appealed only on the ground of unfair sentencing regarding the part on which the judgment of conviction was pronounced, and the dismissal of prosecution was dismissed by both the defendant and the prosecutor.

Therefore, since the dismissal of public prosecution is separated and finalized as it is, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the judgment of conviction among the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant committed an act of interference with business, such as making only drums in a stage, making a microsnifies of other customers, or making profits from other customers, etc., the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the victim who is the operator of the main point of this case, and the victim Eul who was at the scene of the crime of this case together with the investigation agency to the court of the court below, and the defendant stated consistently to the purport that "the defendant obstructed other customers from singing, such as singing when the defendant sings, obstructed them by singing, sing them by hand, and singing them to other customers, etc." The above victim and E's statement are consistent with each other, and there is no special reason to make a false statement about the defendant's specific act of interference with business until the victim and E are punished for perjury or perjury; according to the investigation report prepared by G police officer after receiving a report, the victim and E had the main point of this case.