The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal presented to the prosecutor’s office a photograph taken on January 17, 2013, which was around January 17, 2013, the Defendant maths in accordance with the poppy, D’s bath on the same day, and released goods on the restaurant floor as D’s judgment, upon request from the employees of the restaurant and female on the same day, reported to the police by the employees of the restaurant by general telephone at the restaurant, and D’s photograph was submitted to the prosecutor’s office on January 17, 2013, while the police officer was at the scene prior to the arrival of the police officer, the police officer submitted the photograph taken on January 17, 2013, which was around 18:49, the time when the police officer arrived at the scene of the instant case, and the police officer did not look back before the Defendant police box on January 17, 2013, and the police officer did not have credibility and credibility at each of the investigative agencies and the court below’s testimony and DNA submitted to the investigative agency.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case, reliance on D's statements and the above photographs as they are, which is erroneous in the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On January 17, 2013, from around 18:40 to 18:55, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force by talking that the son’s son did not repay the money to the E restaurant operated by the victim D. B, the son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.