The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is that the Defendant was at the time, at the entrance of the instant office, at a point of three to four meters away from the entrance of the instant office, and there was no witness to the documents, etc. as they cannot be seen up until the office is located

Therefore, the defendant did not make a false statement contrary to memory.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, even though the Defendant was in the process of disturbing documents, books, etc. on the floor of the instant office in order to find where where B exists, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant made a false statement contrary to memory, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, even though the Defendant was in the process of bringing the instant office design in order to find where B is located.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

① At around 13:00 on October 6, 2014, four persons, including B, etc., interfered with D’s business and damaged their property by setting up D’s cell phone and set up d’s cell phone and set up d’s cell phone and set up on the floor at the instant office, which is a corporation F., D’s office.

② Four persons, including B, were arguing that they did not interfere with or damage property in criminal cases, such as interference with business affairs of the Incheon District Court 2015 High Court 1700 for the above criminal facts.

③ In the above criminal case, the Defendant appeared as a witness and stated to the effect that “the Defendant was present at the hearing of the office floor or the office site at the time when he scam scam scam scam scam, and there was no anything to be disturbed,” the Defendant’s appearance at the above criminal case.

④ In the location where the Defendant asserts that he had a book, only a toilet in the instant office cannot be seen as a book inside the office. The Defendant considered that he was a book located in the instant office at the time of the prosecution.