The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal did not interfere with the main business operations, such as taking the victim’s bath or taking the victim’s interest at the time of the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim has consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the effect that "the victim has been engaged in business, who had expressed his will and had his will, etc.". No reasonable circumstance exists to suspect the credibility of the statement, and the police officer F's statement dispatched after receiving the 112 report at the time is consistent with the above statement. Thus, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the main business by taking the victim's desire, etc. at the time and place in the decision of the court below.

Therefore, the lower court was justifiable to have convicted of the facts charged of this case.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.