The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel

A. Fact-finding is that the Defendant was only within the main room managed by the Victim F, and there was no desire for the victim, or no disturbance for the victim, and the customer who entered the said main point was re-introspected by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant’s daily behaviors did not pay the alcohol value, and the police officers reported to the police by the victim on the ground that the Defendant’s daily behaviors did not go to the police.

Therefore, even though the Defendant did not commit an act interfering with the business and did not intend to interfere with the business, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of interfering with the business of this case, thereby erroneous the facts.

B. In light of the fact that the punishment of the lower court, which sentenced six months of imprisonment, is too unreasonable, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of interference with the determination of facts, the term “power” refers to any tangible or intangible force that may cause confusion with a person’s free will, and even if a person engaged in a business is not directly terminated, it includes an act that makes a certain physical condition and makes another person freely and normally unable or considerably difficult to perform his/her duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7943, May 24, 2012). In the establishment of a crime of interference with the performance of duties, it does not require that the result of interference with the performance of duties would actually occur, but it is sufficient to cause the risk of interference with the duties. In addition, the intention is not necessarily required to have the intention of interfering with the purpose of interference with the duties or planned interference with the duties, and it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interfering with another person’s business due to his/her own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do7943, Mar. 16, 1997; 201.