The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) As to the obstruction of business, the Defendant: (a) committed a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles; (b) the phone was called out to J, and the person commencing a claim due to coffee was not the Defendant but J. A. The Defendant made a statement in exaggeration of circumstances at the time of E. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine. (c) When the police officer arrived at the scene, the Defendant was talked about the obstruction of business performance, and did not have any disturbance.

However, as police officers did not take measures against the defendant who was in his hands and requested to present his identification card, the performance of duties is considered to be too tension and only the ditch had occurred.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of a fine of KRW 3,00,000 against the Defendant claiming unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the original court, such as that there is no specific circumstance to suspect the credibility of each testimony made by witnesses E, G, and H, and that the CCTV and victim E image do not conflict with their statements, which correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case is justifiable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the Defendant.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing each of the instant cases.