The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) The Defendant did not have used force. In other words, the Defendant was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, and did not have intended for the victim, and did not know that the steel makers or small air conditioners kept outside the restaurant were the victim’s ownership. In addition, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the spunched belief in the crypium was calcium. 2) The Defendant did not prove that the use of the restaurant of other customers was obstructed by the Defendant’s criminal act, and thus, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s business.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts is that whether the Defendant was drunk at the time of the instant case, whether the steel makers or small air conditioners, etc. perceived that the Defendant was the victim’s ownership, whether the Defendant was erroneous as a chloasium in chloasium is irrelevant to whether the Defendant exercised force. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, particularly the victim’s statement and field photograph (see Nos. 3 and 8 of the evidence list), and CCTV video (see No. 8 of the CCTV list), etc., the fact that the Defendant exercised force by avoiding disturbance as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment is sufficiently sufficiently recognized, and it is evident that the Defendant had the intent to interfere with business. 2) In establishing the crime of interference with business, it is sufficient that the result of interference with business was not actually required, but that there is a risk of interference with business.

(Supreme Court Decision 96Do2801 Decided March 11, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5117 Decided November 28, 2013, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the victim’s restaurant business hours are from 6 A.m. to 6 A.m. the following day.