The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the Defendant’s mother to find out the store of the victim’s operation in order to receive the balance of money lent by H to the victim, and there was no disturbance or interference with business, and there was no intention of interference with business. Even if there was a fact of interference with business, this is due to the purpose of voluntary remedy for repayment of liability with the consent of the victim, and thus, illegality is dismissed.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① according to the statement of E, F, and I prepared: (a) one person entering the store at the time of the victim’s operation store was threatening and expressed a desire to do so; (b) the customer who entered the store was able to do so; and (c) the police officer was dispatched by reporting E to 112; and (c) the defendant also recognized that he was able to keep the victim out of his sound and desire; and (d) even if the defendant was able to receive payment to the victim, the defendant’s act of self-help under Article 23 of the Criminal Act should be considered to constitute a case where the defendant was unable to exercise his right to claim compensation by the legal procedure, and there is no reasonable ground to protect the victim’s right to claim compensation.