The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that a misunderstanding of facts Defendant, at the time of the instant case, went to a restaurant operated by the victim (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

However, at the time, the Defendant only told the victim to drink, and there was no fact that the Defendant saw the victim to drink the table, let the victim take a bath, and talked with sound.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s business of the instant restaurant by force as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① At the time of the instant case, the victim expressed a written agreement that the fine was 5 million won or more because of the victim’s occurrence of the instant case, and thus, the victim expressed the victim’s desire to do so, and was unable to do so by making the table, and even if some customers reported to the police, some customers made a concrete statement about the Defendant’s obstruction of business.

② At the time of the instant case, G, who was a witness at the instant restaurant, stated that the Defendant had expressed the victim’s desire and sound, and is consistent with the statement of the victim.

In addition, the police officer L also prepared a criminal investigation report stating that the defendant had a view to sound and humping, and directly observed the disturbance and arrested the defendant as an offender in the act of committing a crime.

B. On November 23, 2014, the Defendant filed a request for summary order by interfering with and assaulting the victim on the instant crime of determining unreasonable sentencing.