Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not call for the victim's appearance and apartment lease deposit due to the dispute between the victim's appearance and apartment lease deposit and did not interfere with his/her business by taking a bath or avoiding disturbance.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s mobile phone agency business, such as the instant facts charged.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
① According to the Defendant’s investigation process, the lower court’s judgment, and the party’s oral statement, the circumstances of the instant case are as follows.
The defendant's mother, a lessor of the defendant's house, changed the name of the tenant into the name of a woman in a de facto marital relationship with the defendant, and entered into a new lease contract with the defendant, and the defendant was not entitled to refund the lease deposit, and the appraisal with the victim has deteriorated in the course of dispute.
The defendant directly reported 112 to resist the problem of return of the lease deposit on the day of the instant case, and tried to find the mobile phone agency operated by the victim with the police officer.
At the time, the Defendant got a cellphone charging device at the victim shop.
The fact that the victim was placed, and the fact that the victim brought an article against the victim is recognized.
② The Defendant asserts to the effect that CCTV installed at the time of mobile phone agencies cannot prove the fact that the Defendant took a bath because the sound of CCTV was not recorded, as in the facts charged, at the same time, Hand charge chargers and the victim took a bath.
However, according to the statement that the victim D and the police officer called up after receiving the report of the defendant 112 at the time, the defendant took three times regardless of the police officer's restraint on the day of the instant case, and changed the victim's "Fraud".