The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) the desire to interfere with the task is inconsistent with the desire to commit it, but there was no intention to interfere with the task;

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that there was no intention to interfere with the business, the crime of interference with the business is established in a case where a person interferes with the business of another by deceptive means or by force (Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act). The term “power” refers to any force that may cause confusion with the free will of a person.

In addition, it is sufficient that there is a risk that the result of the interference with business is not necessary to actually occur, and that there is a risk of causing the interference with business.

Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant had exercised his power by taking advantage of his desire to and her employees before the hotel knickter at the time, and by taking advantage of the disturbance, etc., and that the defendant's above act could at least interfere with the business of other customers at least by the hotel hotel.

Since it is reasonable to view this part of the defendant's argument is rejected.

B. The Defendant acknowledges all facts of each of the instant crimes. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, the Defendant recognized all of the facts of each of the instant crimes.

However, this case is that the defendant committed a crime of insult and interference with business by bringing the defendant to a hotel employee and avoiding the disturbance, and the nature of the crime is not less weak, and no damage recovery or agreement has been reached until now.

The defendant has been punished for a fine on one occasion due to an violent crime, and has been punished several times due to an independent crime.

In addition, there is no change in circumstances that are conditions for sentencing in the trial compared with the original judgment.

In addition to these circumstances, the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances, circumstances after the crime, and sentencing of similar cases, as shown in the records and arguments of this case.