The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is a misunderstanding of the fact about interference with business affairs by the defendant entering the service room, but only he was seated, and there is no omission of lying-in or disturbing the disturbance as stated in the facts charged in the instant case from interfering with the business affairs of the service center.

B. In consideration of the various circumstances of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence of the lower court (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts as to interference with business affairs, and the following circumstances revealed by the statement at the court below of the court below as to witness C and D, it can be recognized that the defendant under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case interfered with the duties of police officers and service personnel by enjoying the disturbance in the service room in front of the service room, and thereby obstructing the duties of the service personnel, this part of the facts charged is sufficiently convicted, and the judgment of the court below that made the conclusion is correct, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

① A witness C, a police officer called up at the time, stated that the initial report was a disturbance in the service room, that the Defendant was inside the service room when the witness first called out, and that he was the same as having a verbal dispute with the service personnel or having a vagabonds, that he continued to talk against the subway service personnel, police officers, etc., and that he was only one time before the service room.

② The witness D, at around 19:00 p.m. at the time of the instant case, went to the service room for shift service, and the Defendant continued to take a bath to the police officer dispatched within the service room and considered the situation in which the Defendant was dismissed.

Other employees stated that the defendant's disturbance has long persisted for a long time, and that it was interfered with the business.

③ On the other hand, the witness D in the original judgment.