The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On September 17, 2013, the summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the Defendant: (b) demanded repair of the part of a water tank that was damaged before the victim; and (c) the victim tried to bring the Defendant into the office of the victim while intending to take the office of the victim; and (d) thus, (c) the Defendant was off the shoulder in order not to attract the Defendant; and (d) there was no need for the victim to take a bath or boom the victim.

In addition, on October 17, 2013, the defendant again requested the repair of the above water tank drinking, and found it in the victim's office, but there is no hump or disturbance to the victim.

Therefore, although the defendant's act does not constitute the crime of interference with business, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged in this case.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court: (a) found the victim’s office around 19:00 on September 17, 2013 and demanded the victim to restore the part of the water tank drinking to the original state; and (b) found the Defendant in the victim’s office at around 12:20 on October 17, 2013 and around 13:00 on around 12:20 on and around 17:0, and found the Defendant in the victim’s office to take a bath to the victim; and (c) found the Defendant’s act as above constitutes the crime of interference with business, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, 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.