A. Although the Defendant did not interfere with the victim E-cafeteria business as stated in the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant obstructed the victim's restaurant business as stated in the judgment below, so the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

1) The victim stated in the investigative agency that “the defendant was able to take a restaurant, and made a noise while putting the customers in the restaurant. The victim was unable to take the floor. The victim was likely to interfere with the business, and the defendant made a very detailed and detailed statement in the situation at the time of the instant case, such as “the defendant obstructed the entrance, hump, and hump, and interfered with the business that prevents the customers from entering.” (Evidence No. 31, 32 of the record)” (Evidence No. 31, 32 of the record) The victim stated in the court below that “the victim made a very detailed statement in the court below that “the defendant was drunk while under the influence of alcohol, it was difficult for the customers to enter the entrance, and even if I went back, I repeated to go back.” (No. 46, 47 of the trial record).

3. However, the victim reversed part of the statement made by the investigative agency on the ground that the court below did not have any desire for customers, and that it does not interfere with the business, as the victim did not have any desire for customers, but did not interfere with the entrance. However, in light of the fact that the victim did not want punishment for the defendant after the lapse of eight months after the victim stated specifically in the investigative agency, the part partially modified statement made in the court below