All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts1) Defendant A thought that the victim had already been engaged in other activities when demanding the Defendant and B to calculate the meal, and that there was a little controversy between them, but it does not avoid disturbance to the extent that it interferes with the victim’s business affairs concerning the restaurant operation. However, Defendant B only made a call to another person during a dispute with the victim and did not interfere with the victim’s restaurant business jointly with Defendant A.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of two million won, Defendant B: a fine of one million won) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too heavy.

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court. ① The victim E was relatively consistent from the investigative agency to the lower court, i.e.,: (a) the victim E was drinking six people, including the Defendant, to the restaurant from first night night to night; (b) the three male people first went out; (c) one of the three male men was extinguished; (d) the Defendants attempted to do so; and (c) the Defendants asked the police to call for a disturbance, and even if they said that they would go against the disturbance, she continued to cause a disturbance, such as putting a sound on the restaurant at the time, and b) the Defendant “A was drinking in the restaurant,” and the Defendant A continued to have made a statement to the police station that “I will not make a statement to the Defendant,” even if the police officer was able to do so before he made a statement.