The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, even though the Defendant did not have any intention to obstruct the business of the victim, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of facts, based on the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the victim leased the golf practice room of the second floor of the building of this case and started the golf practice room business from July 1, 2013; and (ii) the Defendant had been in charge of the first third floor outdoor practice room from around October 18, 2014 until around October 18, 2014, managing the third floor outdoor practice room and allowing the customers to use the third floor outdoor practice room; (ii) the Defendant appears to have used the third floor outdoor practice room in a peaceful manner for the reason that he did not raise any objection during that period; and (iii) the Defendant appears to have been aware that the risk of interference with the business of the victim with the operation of the golf practice hall was inflicted on him at the time of the outdoor practice room.

reliance on such belief and there was a substantial reason for such belief;

In full view of the fact that it is not different, it can be viewed that the defendant interfered with the victim's business.

The decision was determined.

In light of the records, the above fact finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous as alleged by the defendant.