The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 (as to the part of 2016 order 1123 of the judgment of the court below) found a telecom operated by the injured party by September 25, 2015, prior to the date of the crime in the above case, but there was no fact that the above notice was found on February 20, 2016 and February 21, 2016, which was the date of the crime in the above part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below found the above part of the facts charged guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant, at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, was in a state of mental and physical weakness by drinking alcohol.

(c)

The punishment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s business by following the victim’s disturbance due to the following: “The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case 1123 Godan 1123, as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, intrudes into the instant public notice, and making the victim take a large voice, etc.

(1) The injured party consistently intrudes the above public notice tele on several occasions at the end of September 2015 from investigative agency to the court of the court below, and the injured party requests each time to leave.

If the demand for a disturbance, such as taking a bath, was reported to the police by avoiding disturbance, and even after being drunk, it was difficult to avoid disturbance by taking the victim’s bath at the request of the victim who requested him/her to enter the said notice several times without permission. The date and time of accurately memory was stated as around February 16, 2016 and around February 18:30, 2016, and was clearly stated separately from the Defendant’s residential intrusion and interference with his/her duties on September 2015.

In addition, the victim stated specifically the place where the defendant was found at the time of the crime, and the behavior of the defendant at the time.