The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The appellate court’s appellate court’s judgment dismissing the prosecution against the assault of the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the conviction against the obstruction of business, and filed an appeal against the guilty portion only by the Defendant.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against which the prosecutor did not appeal is affirmed, and thus, the judgment of this court is limited to the guilty part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not interfere with the business of the victim, and did not have any intention to interfere with the business.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's intentional interference with the victim C's business over four occasions as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below is sufficiently recognized, so the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit

B. In full view of the frequency and degree of interference with sentencing and the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine due to interference with the management of the apartment of this case in 2015, the Defendant did not want the punishment of the Defendant, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, circumstances after the crime, and all other sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate, and is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s argument on the punishment of the Defendant is groundless.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, it is clear that the crime No. 4 "victim D" of the judgment below is a clerical error in the victim C, and thus, it is ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.