The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the victim of misunderstanding of facts D is the principal of the damage in this case, there is no credibility in the statement, and even according to the testimony of each court of the court below of the E and F, it is not possible to find out whether the defendant interfered with D's restaurant business as stated in the decision of the court below at the time, because he did not specifically witness the situation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 300,000) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The part of the lower court's assertion of mistake of facts is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i.e., the victim D found the Defendant in the restaurant at the time of the lower court's trial that "at the time, the Defendant had expressed his desire to "the same year as a baby, sick person, sick person, sick person, and so on. So, the customer who was drinking at the restaurant did not go out of the restaurant." As such, E, a police officer dispatched to the scene at the time, made a statement to the lower court that "at the time of the call, the Defendant was arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender after hearing the statement of D and ascertaining the circumstances at the time of interfering with the business (the Defendant)", and the F made a statement to the effect that "I had no strong desire to punish the Defendant."

Even when the defendant was called out, the defendant continued to take a bath against D and even took a bath against the author.

When the proposal is called, the defendant is called ‘the same year as D', and the same year.