Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the candidate for medical treatment and custody is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The fact that the defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") cited a camping hole in the FPC room operated by the victim E is nothing more than that of the defendant's case, but there is no fact that at the time there is no employee, customer, or other person about to escape or threaten.

In addition, the Defendant did not have a shouldered so-called a police officer K, and the Defendant went to the police officer to request the help of the police officer in the situation where the Defendant was driving away from the police officer, such as the victim C, etc. at the time, and K moved to the police officer to take out the so-called 's 's 's 's 's 's 's own 's 's 's '

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as it found the Defendant guilty of both the crime of interference with business and special obstruction.

The sentencing of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the basis of an unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

The court below's decision on the medical treatment and custody claim is unfair.

Judgment

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake on the part of the defendant's case, particularly the witness K, E, and C's legal statements, CCTV CD (Evidence No. 23), investigation report (Evidence No. 123), photograph (Evidence No. 124) (Evidence No. 124), etc., in relation to the fact that the defendant interfered with his business on September 5, 2014 operated by the victim E, he may recognize the fact that he spits the inside of the FPC operated by the victim E without any justifiable reason, and that he spits them into the floor and spits into the floor, and that the victim was threatening to go home as if the victim was able to go home.