2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the victim C, from the investigative agency to the lower court, consistently obstructed the Defendant’s operation of the restaurant by causing a large noise while consistently checking the settlement difference between the amount of food and the amount of damage inflicted by the Defendant, who was delivered for daily use, from the investigation agency to the lower court.

The statement is made, ② the statement at E’s investigative agency and the court below, which are restaurant employees, also correspond to the statement of the victim. ③ The police officer called upon upon the defendant’s report, ③ The police officer called upon the defendant to resolve the case by conversations with the defendant, but the defendant was forced to leave the police officer before the defendant called upon several times, and the defendant interfered with the victim’s duties and requested a judgment for a trial due to interference with the victim’s duties. ④ The defendant may demand the victim to pay a reasonable day and resist the victim.

Even if the defendant voluntarily accompany the police officer dispatched after receiving a report beyond a temporary port and calls for sound in the restaurant to the extent that the trial will be requested due to interference with his/her duties, etc., it is reasonable to see that the peace of the restaurant operated by the damaged person and thus has lost social reasonableness. In full view of the above, it can be recognized that the defendant interfered with the operation of the restaurant operated by the victim by avoiding the disturbance, such as noise, while taking a bath, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had the intention to interfere with his/her duties. Thus, the defendant's assertion of the fact is erroneous.