The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. As to interference with business, there is a fact that the defendant made an objection against the victim's displeasure, but there is no disturbance to the extent that the business of the PC is hindered. 2) As to each fraud, the defendant did not take the PC for the purpose of deceiving the user fee from the beginning in light of the fact that the defendant used smoking rooms, toilets, etc. at the PC page with the bank with cash of 50,000 won.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to obstruction of business, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below: ① DPC business owner E requested the defendant to calculate a fee again without using a computer, and ② The defendant's sound was reduced due to verbal abuse of the defendant; ② although the defendant was at a place such as smoking room, toilet, coffee board, and emergency exit for 20 minutes without using a computer, it did not request the defendant to calculate a fee for a single period; ③ After that, the defendant did not request the calculation of a fee again, the defendant did not use the computer, and the defendant did not request the calculation of a fee again, and the defendant did not appear to have been aware of the fact that the victim obstructed the above floor while opening the PC at the entrance of the PC business owner, and thus, the defendant did not appear to have been aware of the fact that the defendant did not use the computer properly due to a series of reasons for misunderstanding of facts.