The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was not aware of the fact that the entrance of the restaurant operated by the victimized person was set up or sounded.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the statements of the victim and witness without credibility.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there are no new objective grounds that could affect the formation of conviction during the appellate trial’s trial process of a judgment on the assertion of fact-finding, and there are no reasonable grounds to deem that the determination of the value of evidence for the first instance was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of fact is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, the determination on the acknowledgement of facts in the first instance shall not be allowed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the detailed circumstances in the item of “determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel” in the said judgment.

There is no reasonable reason to deem that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous in the examination of evidence or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.

In addition, there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of evidence in the trial process of one court.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

3. The instant crime of determining the illegality of sentencing is committed with the Defendant’s interference with the victim’s business by avoiding disturbance due to the Defendant’s interference with the victim’s business by leaving the entrance at a restaurant operated by the Defendant, standing in the floor, and sounding on the floor.