beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Although the defendant did not interfere with the business of the victim in the restaurant of this case, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.
2. Determination
A. On December 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by avoiding disturbance for about one hour, including, but not limited to, the victim C (the victim 49 years of age) in Suwon-gu, Busan (the victim hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) who works for this employee; (b) and (c) having the boomed two joints of liquors with drinking booms without any justifiable reason; and (d) repeating the booms with the booming the booms with the booms on the floor; and (c) by force, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by blocking the entry of the booms by having the booms on the floor of the drinking branch for about one hour.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the following grounds.
“The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the Defendant did not interfere with the above restaurant business at the time of the instant case. However, the interference with the business did not require interference with the business, but is likely to interfere with the business. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court. Examining the CCTV images taken by the instant case, the Defendant’s act did not constitute a customer in the said restaurant or enter the restaurant without any justifiable reason, even if he saw the CCTV images taken by the Defendant at the above restaurant to 2 times a week, breadbly breath, and cut the breath to the breath and cut the breath to the breath of the breath and cut the breath to the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the Defendant’s motion picture, etc.
Even if such an act interferes with the business of the restaurant.