The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is different from the explanation at the time of the contract for sale in lots, and thus, the defendant's act does not interfere with the victim's sale business or constitutes a legitimate act. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant entered into a contract for C Apartment at the time of strike.

On December 3, 2013, from around 12:20 to 13:20 on the same day, the Defendant, at the location of another customer, under a contract, an apartment in the apartment sales office of D 301 at D 301 at the time of the strike, saying, “The apartment under a contract is a fraud contract.” The Defendant interfered with the victim E’s apartment sales business, which is the head of the headquarters of the apartment sales office of the above apartment unit for about one hour.

B. The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (a) at the time of the instant case, the victim sufficiently explained to the Defendant on the government policy related to tax reduction or exemption, conditions of visit to the relevant apartment house, conditions of occupancy, etc.; and (b) the Defendant was also aware of such circumstances; (c) the Defendant repeatedly demanded the victim to perform the contract in accordance with the terms and conditions required by the victim; (d) despite the victim’s proposal to refuse to accept the above assertion, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s business of selling the apartment in lots by raising words to the effect that it is a fraud during a certain period of time in the sales office; and (c) there was no special change in the terms and conditions of the apartment sale in particular disadvantageous to the Defendant; and (e) in light of the fact that the Defendant’s noise was committed by raising the expression of fraud within the sales office for one hour.