The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts constituting the crime of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below, the defendant was locked at home at the time, and there was no fact that he had a sign prohibiting parking prior to the entrance of the parking lot E apartment (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) like this part of the facts charged.

The judgment below

Criminal facts

As to Paragraph 2 of this Article, the Defendant was assaulted by G from G on-site in order for the instant apartment residents G to resist the light, and was unable to prevent G from departing from the field before the police is called. This is a legitimate act that is a legitimate act and thus the illegality is dismissed.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to each of the facts charged in the instant case, thereby convicted the Defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below among the facts constituting the crime of the judgment of the court below (in particular, the result of a commission of appraisal by the National Scientific Investigation Agency of the court below) can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant's act in paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below among the facts constituting the crime of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles is likely to interfere with the management of the apartment by setting up a signboard prohibited from parking in front of the entrance of the parking lot at the time and place stated in the facts charged (the defendant's assertion that the crime of interference with business is not established because the signboard prohibited from parking was immediately removed, but it was likely that the defendant had already interfere with the management of the apartment by setting up the signboard prohibited from parking in front of the entrance of the parking lot (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do3231, Mar. 29, 2002). This part of the defendant's allegation is without merit.