The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the defendant, in the corridor in which the defendant is the common area, prevents the passage of the defendant by having a bicycle and a shoes, and prevents the window to be evacuated at the time of an accident, and thus, the defendant did not take corrective measures despite the request for correction, since he did not take corrective measures, he did not enter the E's office to photograph an empty space and carried out a part of Mady clause against the E's employees, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant interfered with the business of the E'

2. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion under the title “determination on the Defendant’s argument” in the judgment, on the ground that the Defendant asserted the same purport as that of the grounds for appeal in this part, and rejected the said assertion.

The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows. The court below's reasoning is as follows, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined. The defendant entered the office question of E, namely, the victim F and G, who is an employee of E, requested the victim F and G to remove a new and bicycle, without permission after a locking, and photographe E with the rear door of E's office without permission; the victim F and G to restrain it; they are friendly with a large quantity of news, and E have a big interest; E's new and bicycle places are other than those visiting E's office due to a corridor other than a corridor adjacent to the rear door of E's office; it cannot be seen as a passage or window to evacuate at the time of an accident; the lessor of the sixth floor of the building, who is a lessor of the defendant of the fifth floor, has a right to manage other parts adjacent to E's office located in the fiveth floor; the defendant is not a new and new one, and the defendant's new and new one is not a criminal witness.