The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of the defendant (fact-finding) was in progress in a criminal trial (U.S. District Court 2013No6385) where the defendant was found to be "D Hospital" located in Ansan-si, a member of the Gu of Ansan-si where I was the chief director. The employees of the above hospital belonged to the defendant by his attitude of entertainment and by fraud, and committed abusive and assault to the defendant in the process, and there was no fact that the defendant interfered with the duties of the hospital as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below also asserted that the defendant raised the speech about the false speech and the inhumane treatment of employees, such as nurses of "D Hospital", and that there was no disturbance as stated in the facts charged. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

Since the statement of F and E, who is an employee of the D Hospital, is recognized to be reliable in light of the consistent and specific contents of the statement from the investigative agency to the court below's trial, the judgment of the court below that recognized the credibility of the above witness's statement is just.

In addition, in full view of the fact that the defendant received a suspect examination from the police and received a notification to the effect that he would be punished for interference with business from the police officer who was dispatched after receiving the report, the defendant sent to the second floor of the "D Hospital", and the fact that the defendant stated that "the current Suwon District Court was aware that it was a situation in which it was subject to a measure of prohibiting access from accessing I from accessing I (Evidence No. 34-35 of the evidence record)" (Evidence No. 34-35 of the evidence record), it can be sufficiently recognized that

Therefore, the evidence duly adopted and examined such as the above F and E’s statements at the court of original instance.