The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although a misunderstanding of facts is a fact that the Defendant, at the restaurant operated by the victim, was the head of the drinking flag that the Defendant himself/herself used, he/she did not interfere with the business of the victim restaurant while taking a bath in the above restaurant, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 1,000,000 imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's assertion on this part has no merit since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by avoiding disturbance by bringing the disturbance to the customers who have been in the above restaurant at large times and at the place of the defendant's decision.

(A) Although the defendant asserts that only the food he/she had taken is not a disturbance due to a large lusence or a brutation, he/she does not have a disturbance. However, in light of the victim's statement, investigation report, on-site photograph, etc., the above defendant's above assertion is difficult to believe).

The judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim, but the defendant again committed the crime of this case despite the fact that the defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime. The crime of this case is not good in that the defendant interfered with the operation of the victim's cafeteria, such as a shotum or a shot, etc. in the victim's cafeteria on the ground that the defendant said that the victim would have avoided tobacco outside the victim, and thus it is extremely harmful to the public peace. The court below seems to have determined the punishment in consideration of the circumstances of the defendant's claim, and other various sentencing conditions provided for in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means, and result, before and after the crime.