A. Error of fact (1) The Defendant knew that wastewater treatment pipes (hereinafter “instant pipes”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below were connected to the Defendant’s penty room 10, rather than the victim’s penty, and thereby prevents part of the section. Thus, the Defendant does not intentionally interfere with the victim’s business.

(2) At the time, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have interfered with the victim’s business since he installed small pipes on the part of the instant pipelines so that sewage can flow out, thereby obstructing the victim’s business.

(2) However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, since the court below convicted the charged facts of this case.

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

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. We examine the judgment on Chapter 1: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below; (b) the Defendant did not take the procedure to confirm this part at the time of blocking the Defendant’s use of the same pipes connected to the Defendant’s penty and the victim’s penty; (c) there is no special circumstance to mislead the Defendant that the pipe of this case was connected with the Defendant’s penty’s sewage room 10; and (d) the Defendant and the victim were not in a usual criminal dispute relationship; and (e) on September 3, 2010, the Defendant sent the victim a peremptory letter to the effect that “the Defendant would prevent the Defendant from using the victim’s penty connected with the victim’s penty when demanding the use of separate septic tank” (Evidence 2 rights No. 16 and 17 of the evidence record).