The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal is true that the defendant found the management office, there was no intention to interfere with the business at the time, and there was no fact that the defendant led the victim to sound, or avoided the disturbance to the extent that the business of the victim would be interfered with.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. The judgment of the court below is consistent with the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the victim from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below: (a) the victim made a statement consistent with the victim’s statement by consistently stating from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below to the effect that “the chief of the management office, who has been living in the place of the time of the instant case, takes away with the victim’s work hours; (b) the victim’s statement and the police officer’s statement that “at the time of the instant case; (c) how the victim would have been receiving the residents’ blood benefits; and (d) the victim and the police officer continued to drive away from the scene for one hour; and (d) the victim did not have any specific motive or circumstance to make a statement to the police officer after considering the following facts: (a) the police officer sent to the scene after receiving the report from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court of the court of the court; and (d) the victim and the police officer did not have any specific motive or reason to make the victim’s statement.