All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts as to the crime of interference with business (defendants 1) Defendant A: (a) had conversations with the victim at an inner point operated by the victim D; (b) had a little horse dispute; and (c) did not have any intention to interfere with the victim’s inner business operations. (b) Defendant B was only a person who was involved in a scambling of the scambling point at the time of conversation between Defendant A and the victim; and (c) did not interfere with the victim’s internal business operations in collusion with Defendant A.

B. The sentence (2 million won of fine) imposed by the court below on Defendant A is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in the erroneous determination of facts, it can be acknowledged that the defendants committed the act identical to the facts stated in Paragraph 2 of the crime in the judgment of the court below, and thereby, the defendant's operation of the victim D's safe store business was interfered with or at least the risk of causing such a result is likely. 1) The defendant A's act of refusing to enter the victim's secret store by entering the victim's secret store with the victim's abusive view from the victim's secret store with the victim's secret store with the victim's abusive view, and the series of acts of refusing to leave the victim's secret store upon the victim's request from the victim's secret store with the victim's secret store with the victim's secret store operation constitutes the crime of interference with business by interfering with the victim's secret store business. 2) In the case of the defendant B, the defendant Eul did not escape from the victim's secret store with the victim's desire.