The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) Due to the Defendant’s act of interference with business, the Defendant did not interfere with the said victim’s business, such as that the customer did not leave the restaurant operated by C. 2) The Defendant did not desire the victim F.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the same argument as the Defendant alleged in the original judgment. The lower court rejected the argument in its determination on the “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion.” In so determining, it is sufficient that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; in particular, it would be sufficient if the establishment of the crime of interference with business does not require a result of interference with business, but would cause a risk of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do944, Jun. 28, 1991). In so doing, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion that the insult against the victim F of the crime of interference with business was identical to that alleged in the lower judgment.

The lower court rejected the assertion by explaining the judgment on the argument of the Defendant and the defense counsel.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below which recognized that the defendant had expressed an desire to the victim F is justifiable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is disadvantageous to the Defendant.