The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant made a statement of insult as stated in the facts charged, there is no performance.

(2) On November 3, 2012, the Defendant did not make the same remarks as indicated in the facts charged, and since the Defendant’s office is not the victim, it did not interfere with the victim’s business.

(3) On November 5, 2012, the Defendant did not speak with a large interest, and since the place where the occurrence of the instant case occurred is the office of the Defendant, not the victim, there was no fact that he interfered with the victim’s business.

B. When committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 2,500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, i.e., facts acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., (i) the Defendant himself/herself recognized that there was an employee of security enterprises other than the Defendant and the victim in the office at the time of the instant case on October 11, 2012; (ii) the victim stated that there was a customer who consulted with the victim within the office at the time of the instant case from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court consistently from October 17, 2012; (iii) in light of the place and time of the instant case as of October 20, 2012, there is a high possibility that the Defendant’s statement was made; and (iv) the victim stated consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court to the court of the lower court that the Defendant took place around the defect, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s argument in this part of the facts charged is unacceptable.

(2) On November 3, 2012, the lower court duly adopted and examined the interference with the business of November 3, 2012.