The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not interfere with a restaurant business by force.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts: ① the victim made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case at the investigative agency and the court below; ② the Defendant, even though having received the 112 report and received the necessary measures for returning home from the police officers dispatched, was sent back to the cafeteria, and the Defendant left the cafeteria.

In full view of the fact that the Gu does not respond to and is ultimately arrested as flagrant offenders at the scene; ③ the Defendant also stated that there was a fact that the Defendant would go to the employees and other customers because of an order issued by an investigative agency; ④ The CCTV images taken inside the restaurant at the time of the instant case, including the fact that the Defendant’s disturbance is avoided and the Defendant’s appearance of raising trial expenses is confirmed, the fact that the Defendant interfered with his duties by force, such as as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, is sufficiently recognized.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant as above.

In full view of all the circumstances that serve as conditions for sentencing in this court, the judgment of the court below was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion, or there is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below.

In addition, even if the sentencing grounds revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, background and consequence of the crime, etc., are comprehensively taken into account, the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.