The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty by misunderstanding the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant merely asked another female customer who was at the coffee shop of the victim and did not act to avoid a disturbance by large voice.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly adopted and examined the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court: (a) at an investigative agency, the victim contacted 2 female grandchildren who wree sons who wree at a coffee shop operated by the Defendant, by telephone, and requested the Defendant to move to another place. Nevertheless, the Defendant continued to move to the same place without moving to another place; (b) it was difficult for the Defendant to have wred the female guests to wre and sons; (c) at the time of the locking; (d) the Defendant made it difficult for the victim to have wred about 30 minutes on the wind; and (d) the Defendant also stated that “at the time of the police shop, two female grandchildren wree sons who wreed and wreed to wre on the victim, so that he would not be able to see the victim’s desire to appear at the scene by asking the victim and the victim’s wrong report.”