A. (1) Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts did not enter a restaurant even though the victim passed ahead of the victim’s restaurant at the time of the second crime of this case, but did not enter the restaurant.

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

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below's determination of mistake of facts: (i) the victim submitted by the police a statement that the defendant interfered with the business by entering the police room, i.e., e., e., hinginging the defendant hinginginging, hinginginging the defendant, and hinginging, and (ii) according to the statement submitted by the witness G to the police, it is somewhat unclear whether the defendant was entering the police room or not; (ii) the main contents are that the defendant hinging the defendant hinging the defendant while showing the victim's self-defense; and (iii) even if the defendant was hing the defendant's success as alleged by the defendant, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant interfered with the victim's business by force in light of the circumstance of the case acknowledged by the record, the defendant's speech and behavior at the time, and therefore, it is difficult to view that the method of interference of business was somewhat different enough to affect the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect this. The first instance court’s sentencing is reasonable within the scope of discretion.