A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, by misunderstanding the fact that there was no fact that the Defendant was cut down the mark and entered the mark, and only at the entrance of the rain or the entrance, and did not interfere with the business of the rain or the entrance, and there was an error of law that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant

B. The lower court’s sentence (two million won of fine) imposed by the Defendant on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e.,: (a) D, who worked in C Cowna, had been at or near the entrance of the investigative agency, for the reason that it was difficult for the Defendant to smoke in the elevator until the court below rendered a judgment; and (b) consistently stated that it was difficult for the Defendant to have avoided a disturbance by taking photographs using mobile phone camera with the desire to kill other customers (However, D, the court below stated that it was not an memory to determine whether two other customers were demanded to harm the Defendant’s early use of the cell phone camera), ② there was no particular reason to make a false statement against the Defendant; (c) the Defendant itself recognized that the Defendant himself was sound at or near C Cowna or the entrance at the time of the instant case; and (d) the crime of interference with business did not interfere with the Defendant’s business, as it did not sufficiently affect the Defendant’s business operation, and thus, it does not affect the conclusion of the crime.

B. This case’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing