All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not interfere with the victim's business by talking with the victim at the time and place stated in the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment below, or by talking about the victim's monthly rent and reputation of the cosmetic of the third floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul E-building (hereinafter "the beauty room of this case") at the same time and place.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the victim was in a fast state of monthly rent because he did not operate the beauty room in around May 2008 from Defendant B in the investigative agency and the court below’s judgment. Defendant A found the beauty room at each time stated in the criminal facts in the court below’s judgment and entered the said beauty room as follows: (i) whether he had a house for four months or not; (ii) whether he had a house for four months or not; (iii) “any bad year to which he had a house,” (iv) “any bad year to which he did so,” and (iv) Defendant B entered the beauty room as “the front of the customer and his employee of the beauty room,” and (v) he did not inform the Defendants of his sound from around April 13, 2011 to 30 minutes because he did not come to the beauty room.”

As above, the report of disturbance to the police did not go to the police and consistently states that the police did not go to the police. ② In many cases, Defendant A visited the beauty room to the beauty room, including “I ambling why is not, or why is not,” and Defendant B ambling to the victim. Defendant B ambling in the beauty room. Defendant B stated that “I ambling to the victim, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling.” At the time of the crime of this case, Defendant A Ga Ga was also a beauty room.