The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding 1) The Defendant’s obstruction of business is limited to the annexed list of crimes (hereinafter “crime list”) attached to the judgment of the court below relating to paragraph (1) of the crime committed in the judgment below.

(2) As indicated in the judgment below, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the fraud of each of the facts charged in this case, on the ground that each of the facts charged in this case was erroneous, although there was no intentional interference with the victims’ respective main business operations, and each of the facts charged did not amount to the degree of interference with the victims’ respective main business operations. 2) The Defendant committed fraud, which was ordered and received the alcohol and alcohol at the date and place specified in Paragraph (3) of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, but the relevant main points were the place where the victim provided alcohol and alcohol, although the Defendant was required to pay the alcohol value in advance, and provided the alcohol and alcohol to the victimJ. However, the court below convicted the Defendant of the fraud of each of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts.

3) The Defendant was guilty of the injury of each of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts, although the Defendant was unable to walk the victim’s legs and walk the victim’s bridge at several times and at the time and place as indicated in paragraph (4) of the crime of this case as indicated in the judgment of the court below. The Defendant was guilty of the Defendant as to the injury of each of the facts charged in this case. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental and physical disability by drinking only at the time of stopping each of the crimes of this case. The Defendant was sentenced to an unreasonable sentencing (i.e., the punishment of the Defendant on the charge of a crime No. 1 through No. 8 of this case as indicated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below).