The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant is as follows: (a) even though the Defendant only stayed only one minute at the shopping district management office (hereinafter “instant management office”) indicated in the facts charged of this case, and did not exercise power or interfere with business, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty; and (b) the same does not apply.

However, the sentence of the court below that sentenced a fine of 1,00,000 won to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although it has not been certain for the time when the defendant had stayed in the management office of this case, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (Provided, That according to the witness E's legal statement of F and G among the testimony of the court below, the part related to F and G among the witness E's legal statement of this case has no admissibility of evidence as a witness's statement), i.e., the following circumstances: ① according to the CD screen, the defendant was in the front where he entered the management office of this case and worked in F and G, and the defendant was in the front of his work in the management office of this case, and the defendant was in the front of his work in the E's book of the management office of this case and the head of the management office of this case was found to have been in the front of his work in order to restrain this, ② The E book of this case is the place where the defendant was in the second of his work, and the defendant's act of interference with business has been recognized as having interfered with the management office of this case and the management office of this case.

B. On the other hand, the Minister of Health and Welfare denies the criminal act by the Defendant, even though the Defendant was the first offender, and the Defendant up to the trial.