The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since there was no intention to obstruct the victims from performing their duties among the facts charged in the instant case, there was no intention to obstruct the business of the victims, there was no intention to obstruct the business, in particular, since the obstruction of business as of February 4, 2020 was approved by the victim K, or there was no act like the facts charged, and therefore, there was no error of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below which convicted the victims of this part.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment and a fine of 900,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below found that the defendant avoided disturbance, such as putting the victim G in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul on February 13, 2020 to 21:40 of the same day, and demanded 2,000 won from the above victim G in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, but refused to demand 2,00 won from the above victim, and obstructed the above inside store's business. ② On the other hand, on February 4, 2020, the defendant entered the "L" convenience store operated by the victim K in Seoul Jin-gu, Seoul, into the calculation unit without any justifiable reason while the victim arranged inventory, and charged the defendant's cell phone with the defendant's act according to the victim's intention, and the defendant's act was obstructed at the convenience store, and the defendant's act was interfered with the above victim's behavior, and the defendant's act was sufficiently recognized in light of the circumstances and details of the defendant's business's intent to receive money from the customer.

The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty on each of the facts charged is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing.